NationStates Jolt Archive

Special thanks to Gruenberg, Wolfish and Ausserland*:

Unconventional Arms Accord
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny

Description: The nations and their deputies here assembled, having convened, conferred, and agreed to the whole of this article, have made the following determinations:

i. The intentional slaughter of innocent civilians through unconventional warfare is a heinous and contemptible act.

ii. Such acts are war crimes, and those who propagate them are war criminals.

iii. Although it is imperative for nations to defend themselves, their people and their allies against attacks by hostile forces, the killing of civilians by such means is wholly unnecessary for this purpose.

iv. Unconventional arms are munitions or devices designed to disperse chemical or biological agents with the effect of irreparably harming, incapacitating or killing troops or civilians; these include various nerve, blister, choking, blood or incapacitating chemical agents, and infectious or contagious viruses, bacteria or microbes, but do not include neutralized biological agents used for vaccines, or mild chemical agents commonly used for law enforcement or personal self-defense, such as tear gas, MACE or pepper spray.

v. Civilians are persons who do not serve an important national political function, who are not members of any national military, paramilitary or police force, or who are serving such forces but in a non-military capacity.

vi. This body must take reasonable measures to prevent the death of civilians in war.

They have therefore committed the United Nations to the following provisions:

1. Condemning the intentional use of unconventional arms against civilian populations, as well as the otherwise unprovoked or disproportionate use of such arms;

2. Enjoining member states against deliberately targeting civilians with unconventional arms;

3. Requiring member states to take good faith measures to prevent unnecessary civilian casualties in combat operations;

4. Obligating member states to prosecute, on pain of the strongest penalties available under the law, all those under their jurisdiction who have been credibly accused of violating Clause 2;

5. Urging nations to forge agreements allowing for the swift extradition of suspected war criminals under this article, to assure that suspects are transferred to the proper jurisdiction;

6. Encouraging nations to share technologies for** the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel, mitigate civilian damage, and serve as alternatives to more deadly and destructive forms of chemical and biological warfare;

7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.

In witness whereof the undersigned, having deposited their respective full powers, have signed the present convention.This draft will likely be updated constantly, but for your benefit, I'll find some bright, annoying color to highlight the changes. So, comments? Post them now. I want to put this thing on the fast track, or some slower track, toward submittal. C'mon, people! Don't make me bump this shit! :mad:

* Who, erm, does not support this, unfortunately.
** Stricken from the text.

Cluichstan can support this, man, unless swayed otherwise. The exclusion of nukes means...uh...oh, yeah...we can still nuke entire countries into oblivion, regardless of civilian casualties. That's way cool.

It also doesn't affect our frickin' Death Star (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=172), man.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

P.S. For all your hard work on this, have a flower!

http://www.herbs2000.com/images/herbs_opium_poppy.jpg

Not only do we "not support" this, we object strongly to it. Cut to the chase and eliminating all the feel-good language about civilian casualties (rather meaningless in the case of biological weapons), it is purely and simply a blocker which would prevent any meaningful legislation by the NSUN in the fields of biological and chemical warfare. This would include any attempt to replace the seriously flawed ban on biological weapons, should that be repealed.

We see no justification whatever for this proposal.

By order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Cluichstan can support this, man, unless swayed otherwise. The exclusion of nukes means...uh...oh, yeah...we can still nuke entire countries into oblivion, regardless of civilian casualties. That's way cool.Right. There is a reason why nukes are excluded. If you can think of a way, absent techwank, for most nations to employ nuclear weaponry without killing scores of civilians, I'd sure like to hear it.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

[Jessie seizes the flower, examines it, decides it is a poppy, and eats it.]

vi. This body must take reasonable measures to prevent the death of civilians in war.

We're aware that this may be perceived as us being pedantic; however could something like “as a result of unconventional weapons” not be added to this. While it has been previously stated this clause could be perceived as a requirement to limit the number of deaths due to conventional weapons (although we wish we could express that more sensitively).

While we fully support such sentiments, it isn’t the place of a motion on “unconventional weapons” to have a clause non-specific to said weapons type.

6. Encouraging nations to share technologies for the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel...

Would political personnel be deemed to include any bureaucrats/civil servants? Under “Civilians are persons who do not serve an important national political function” a nation could claim they are valid targets could they not? After all they are performing an “important political” function by continuing the mechanisms of government but are, in fact, innocents doing a secretarial/organisational job.

We aren’t criticising but rather just asking if such a thing is possible because we simply aren’t sure if it is?

Could the author clarify if we’re just being silly, or, if our concern is valid, could the author not change “political personnel” to something more specific about individuals holding government office/national leadership positions/etc.

Finally, we wish to know whether this would be perceived as a blocker thus preventing future legislation pertaining to inspectorates, more clear definitions of "chemical" or "biological" as time progresses.

EDIT: Ignore that last part, we've gotten our answer pre-emptively o.O

Right. There is a reason why nukes are excluded. If you can think of a way, absent techwank, for most nations to employ nuclear weaponry without killing scores of civilians, I'd sure like to hear it.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

[Jessie seizes the flower, examines it, decides it is a poppy, and eats it.]

Can't think of one, man. I'm waaaaay too high.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

It seems to me that this proposal unfairly favors rich nations that have nukes (or Death Stars) at the expense of poorer nations that have to rely on chemical/bio weapons for their terror, er I mean unconventional attacks.

It seems to me that this proposal unfairly favors rich nations that have nukes (or Death Stars) at the expense of poorer nations that have to rely on chemical/bio weapons for their terror, er I mean unconventional attacks.

*Shameless Plug*
If you need some weapons the IPAA would glady sell you some wonderful Small Arms...for only a teeny tiny profit. Cash only, because with Imperial Palentine Amalagamated Arms We say, In God We Trust, All others must pay Cash.:D
*this message brought to you by Imperial Palentine Amalgamated Arms. We now return to our regularly scheduled broadcast.*

The Palentine gives a "Hell Yeah!" for for this proposal.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Not only do we "not support" this, we object strongly to it. Cut to the chase and eliminating all the feel-good language about civilian casualties (rather meaningless in the case of biological weapons),

We are somewhat confused by Mr. Olembe's reactions to the preambulatory language. The "feel-good" tone of it helps clarify some of the intent of the proposed legislation. While we agree that, generally speaking, preambles are simply flavour text that add nothing to any resolution, I don't really see why that feeling should be more so for this one.

it is purely and simply a blocker which would prevent any meaningful legislation by the NSUN in the fields of biological and chemical warfare.

Condemning the use of these hideous weapons on non-military personnel is a blocker? I can't follow that. Guaranteeing a nation's right to develop them for military targets? Still not a blocker, unless you would consider a blanket Legalization of Euthanasia, Abortion, Gambling, the Death Penalty, or anything like that to be a blocker. No, I can't buy that argument.

This would include any attempt to replace the seriously flawed ban on biological weapons, should that be repealed.

And it should be. But what is wrong with the actual text of this proposal? Other than the somewhat fluffy intro and your view of this as a blocker.

We see no justification whatever for this proposal.

You don't see a point to protecting innocent civilian life? That is most unlike you, Mr. Olembe. Please take the time to explain more fully your reasoning. I, for one, greatly respect your opinion on such matters, and am concerned by your (seemingly off-handed) dismissal of OMGTKK's proposition.

Respectfully
Oskar Feldstein
UN Ambassador for Kivisto
Resting in The Master's Shade

Right. There is a reason why nukes are excluded. If you can think of a way, absent techwank, for most nations to employ nuclear weaponry without killing scores of civilians, I'd sure like to hear it.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations



Exactly, so why not just get it the hell over with and ban nuclear weapons? Seriously, nobody in their right mind would use them, and nobody in their wrong mind should have them in the first place. It is my opinion that any weapon with that much destructive potential should not be used, because these weapons envariably end up creating high civilian body counts and causing long-term damage of some sort.

As for this legislation...

7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where previous standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.

This clause right here pretty much renderes the whole resolution null and void, basically allowing anyone to construct and deploy anything that isn't banned in PREVIOUS resolutions, ergo blocking future legislation. I am totally and unequivocally opposed.

Would political personnel be deemed to include any bureaucrats/civil servants? Under “Civilians are persons who do not serve an important national political function” a nation could claim they are valid targets could they not? After all they are performing an “important political” function by continuing the mechanisms of government but are, in fact, innocents doing a secretarial/organisational job.

We aren’t criticising but rather just asking if such a thing is possible because we simply aren’t sure if it is?

Could the author clarify if we’re just being silly, or, if our concern is valid, could the author not change “political personnel” to something more specific about individuals holding government office/national leadership positions/etc.The language merely "encourages." And as the gut of the proposal bars nations from using any CBW to target any but important national political leaders, it should be concluded that the development of high-tech arms under this mandate would not be intended to target, as you suggest, secretaries or bean-counters. And yes, we do think you're being silly.

Not only do we "not support" this, we object strongly to it. Cut to the chase and eliminating all the feel-good language about civilian casualties (rather meaningless in the case of biological weapons), it is purely and simply a blocker which would prevent any meaningful legislation by the NSUN in the fields of biological and chemical warfare. This would include any attempt to replace the seriously flawed ban on biological weapons, should that be repealed.

We see no justification whatever for this proposal.The language about protecting against civilian casualties is not, as Mr. Olembe implies, mere lip-service. This legislation not only condemns the targeting of civilians using CBW, it specifically enjoins member nations against such acts, and obligates them to try those accused of committing them for war crimes. If we recall correctly, one of your delegation's main objections to the bioweapons ban was that it omitted infectious agents. They are included under this proposal. And yes, this proposal does protect the right of national leaders to determine the constitution of their own national defense arsenals; only under this mandate, they cannot use such weapons to commit war crimes (and that would include munitions using infectious agents such as anthrax). We see no reason for the United Nations to involve itself in members' national-defense policies outside this very important purpose.

Barring that, we are not Reformentia, and we are open to any constructive suggestions you might have to improve this proposal.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

Exactly, so why not just get it the hell over with and ban nuclear weapons? Seriously, nobody in their right mind would use them, and nobody in their wrong mind should have them in the first place. It is my opinion that any weapon with that much destructive potential should not be used, because these weapons envariably end up creating high civilian body counts and causing long-term damage of some sort.Interesting. Have you had the chance to peruse UNR #109 Nuclear Armaments?

This clause right here pretty much renderes [sic] the whole resolution null and void.No, it doesn't.

Condemning the use of these hideous weapons on non-military personnel is a blocker? I can't follow that. Guaranteeing a nation's right to develop them for military targets? Still not a blocker, unless you would consider a blanket Legalization of Euthanasia, Abortion, Gambling, the Death Penalty, or anything like that to be a blocker. No, I can't buy that argument.


We'd suggest the honorable representative look carefully at Clause 7 of the proposal:

7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where previous standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right. [Emphasis added.]

So, I try to repeal the biological weapons ban and replace it with one that properly covers the issue. I can't. It would contradict this proposal. This proposal gives the "national leaders" sole and unlimited license to determine what is necessary for their national defense. So the mentally unbalanced Sultan of Ibbiquibble determines that infectious biological warfare agents are necessary for his national defense because somebody might attack his nation with slingshots someday.

And the same clause would emasculate any attempt to enact a ban on chemical weapons. The "national leaders" of any nation that wanted to produce and stockpile huge quantities of VX and GB could go right ahead and do it. All their leaders would have to do is say, "necessary for national defense" and no one could object.

Our objection to this proposal is anything but "off hand." We have watched it very carefully through its development. We applaud certain portions of it. If Clause 7 was removed, we would happily support it and would have made suggestions to tighten a problem area or two. But it won't be, will it? In our view Clause 7 is the "meat", and the primary intent of the proposal is to block effective legislation on chemical and biological arms control.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

4. Obligating member states to prosecute on pain of the strongest penalties available under the law, all those under their jurisdiction who have been credibly accused of violating Clause 2;

"There should, I believe, be a comma after the word 'prosecute' as the phrase 'on pain of the strongest penalties available under the law' is a structurally unnecessary clause, without which the sentence is still complete. Either that, or have no commas at all in the sentence. Either works, though we recommend using the commas.

"Furthermore, the phrase They have therefore committed the United Nations to the following provisions: does not line up well with the following '~ing' clauses. I'd suggest rewriting this line so that it connects correctly to the following words, most likely by ending the line with 'is' or 'will be' or some such other phrase.

"Nazi'ing aside, you have the full support of the Commonwealth."


-Your International, Interstellar, Interdimensional Grammar Nazi,
Citizen Wolfgang Zero-Thirteen (and his author)

Our objection to this proposal is anything but "off hand." We have watched it very carefully through its development. We applaud certain portions of it. If Clause 7 was removed, we would happily support it and would have made suggestions to tighten a problem area or two. But it won't be, will it? In our view Clause 7 is the "meat", and the primary intent of the proposal is to block effective legislation on chemical and biological arms control.Take the blinders off, Olembe. There is far more "meat" to this proposal than you are reading. This proposal does extend substantial national defense rights to member states, but in our view, when the United Nations takes decides to secure such broad freedoms to its membership, it must also take reasonable measures to assure those rights are not abused. And that is precisely what Clauses 1-6 do.

I would be very curious to know what other "problem areas" you imagine to exist in this proposal, but as your delegation has seemingly (and unfortunately) elected not to be constructive on this matter, I won't ask.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

Take the blinders off, Olembe. There is far more "meat" to this proposal than you are reading. This proposal does extend substantial national defense rights to member states, but in our view, when the United Nations takes decides to secure such broad freedoms to its membership, it must also take reasonable measures to assure those rights are not abused. And that is precisely what Clauses 1-6 do.

I would be very curious to know what other "problem areas" you imagine to exist in this proposal, but as your delegation has seemingly (and unfortunately) elected not to be constructive on this matter, I won't ask.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

We have no blinders on. The only blinders in play here are the ones the representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny has attempted to place on the heads of the members of this Assembly by his "and, oh, by the way, if you've managed to wade all the way through the nice language down to the very bottom of the proposal, we're going to block any meaningful attempts at limiting chemical and biological weapons" proposal.

If you consider allowing any nation that wants to to stockpile massive amounts of chemical and biological weapons, deploy them and utilize them, completely at the whim of its leaders, to be "reasonable measures", we most definitely have a difference in the understanding of that term.

And the representative is quite correct. We did not and will not provide suggestions. Our strong objections to this proposal were voiced in another venue and were largely ignored. We have several times helped with the drafting of proposals with which we disagreed, but not in this case. The government of Omigodtheykilledkenny is amply supplied with experienced, savvy, and expert legislative drafters. They don't need our help, especially with legislation we find abhorrent.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Norderia stands 100% with the Ausserland delegation. As I read the proposal, I was nodding my head in agreement. I think it is only fitting that I had the doubt in my mind, knowing who was behind the draft.
And then I saw these:

6. Encouraging nations to share technologies for the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel, mitigate civilian damage, and serve as alternatives to more deadly and destructive forms of chemical and biological warfare;

7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where previous standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right

For all the posturing and nice things that this proposal does, it is but a pittance next to those clauses. I think the constructive criticism from Ausserland and Norderia is clear here -- get rid of those two clauses. The UN doesn't need to encourage the trade of chemical and biological weaponry development technology, people can do that on their own (tsk, by the way). And the UN damn well better not go blocking future attempts at restricting chemical and biological weapons.

This political meandering and subterfuge leaves a disgusting taste in my mouth, and I'll be fighting it.

Do not pass off Dr. Olembe's protestations as misinformed. The motives of the Federal Republic are crystal clear. So too is our dissent. No blockers on chemical and biological weaponry.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

Ana Koskinen
Counselor

It is precisely delegations such as these that demonstrate the need for Clause 7. The Ausserlanders and the Norderians may joy in meddling with member states' national-security affairs, but we do it, particularly in the face of the rogue 70 percent of the NS world not bound by UN mandates, free to arm themselves and attack member states with all the insane munitions they please.

I shouldn't have to tell you this, but chemical weapons save lives. When you have the capacity to hit the enemy, and hit him hard, and hit him right in the nads where all his fighters and evil political leaders are, you can end wars quicker and negate the need for unnecessary civilian slaughter. You yourselves are free to continue to bathe in the blood of the innocent with your long, dragged out wars fought with inept weaponry, but we will not. And because we will not, we will not allow the United Nations to rob us of a valuable tool in our defense arsenal.

The only problem, of course, is preventing nations from using such weapons on civilians -- and oh, wait! This proposal already does something about that!

Also, the Stout best check his legislative play book: bioweapons are already banned under UNR #113, and we sure as hell aren't going to endanger the security of member nations on some pipe dream of repealing and replacing it.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

It is precisely delegations such as these that demonstrate the need for Clause 7. The Ausserlanders and the Norderians may joy in meddling with member states' national-security affairs, but we do it, particularly in the face of the rogue 70 percent of the NS world not bound by UN mandates, free to arm themselves and attack member states with all the insane munitions they please.

I shouldn't have to tell you this, but chemical weapons save lives. When you have the capacity to hit the enemy, and hit him hard, and hit him right in the nads where all his fighters and evil political leaders are, you can end wars quicker and negate the need for unnecessary civilian slaughter. You yourselves are free to continue to bathe in the blood of the innocent with your long, dragged out wars fought with inept weaponry, but we will not. And because we will not, we will not allow the United Nations to rob us of a valuable tool in our defense arsenal.

The only problem, of course, is preventing nations from using such weapons on civilians -- and oh, wait! This proposal already does something about that!

Also, the Stout best check his legislative play book: bioweapons are already banned under UNR #113, and we sure as hell aren't going to endanger the security of member nations on some pipe dream of repealing and replacing it.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

As the representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny is well aware, not all biological weaponry is banned by the extant NSUN resolution. The flawed definition in that resolution excludes infectious but non-contagious biologicals, such as anthrax. We'd appreciate it if he would avoid such deliberate misstatement of fact.

And we have a question.... Are we to take it from the representative's comments that he considers chemical and biological arsenals a necessary deterrent to use of such weapons by other states?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Oh, good grief. Ambassador, it's the delivery system that grants one the ability to strike the core and brain of an opposing force, not the munition.

It's upsetting to see nations who strive to create a more thoroughly lethal means of defeating their enemies. If armies are destroyed within a day, nations will learn to stop making armies that act like armies. Fourth Generation Warfare will spread to the playbooks of national governments instead of under-funded guerillas, and casualties will go on the rise once more.

Your "progress" with weapons systems isn't preventing deaths, it's shuffling them around. I'll not support any attempts to strip the UN of its ability to push for peace in the world by preventing it from prohibiting weapons of a discernably more lethal capacity.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

As the representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny is well aware, not all biological weaponry is banned by the extant NSUN resolution. The flawed definition in that resolution excludes infectious but non-contagious biologicals, such as anthrax. We'd appreciate it if he would avoid such deliberate misstatement of fact.

And we have a question.... Are we to take it from the representative's comments that he considers chemical and biological arsenals a necessary deterrent to use of such weapons by other states?And this only raises another excellent point.

I am so glad you brought up the d-word. Deterrent. When the enemy knows we can cause him terrible pain, he is much less likely to tap into his own arsenal. The only problem is, we pain to point out for the twentieth time, preventing the slaughter of civilians with such weaponry. No, the UNBW ban does not include anthrax, but this proposal does -- something for which you should be glad, not resentful.

Your "progress" with weapons systems isn't preventing deaths, it's shuffling them around. I'll not support any attempts to strip the UN of its ability to push for peace in the world by preventing it from prohibiting weapons of a discernably more lethal capacity.You mean strip the UN of its ability to emasculate the defense capabilities of member states, and deprive them of their deterrent arsenals?

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

The holo-wolf leans over to the OMGTKK delegate and whispers,
"Mr. Faisano, Mr. Wolfgang would like a word with you in the bar, concerning cloaking devices and other covert weapons systems. He says, 'what the gnomes don't know, won't hurt 'em'."

Turning back to the room, he says, "We fully support this resolution." He then coughs awkwardly, which is made more awkward by the fact that almost everyone knows he's a hologram, and thus should not, in fact, have a reason to cough.

"Thank you. I'll be by the bar shortly."

[OOC: Tomorrow morning. I need sleep.]

You mean strip the UN of its ability to emasculate the defense capabilities of member states, and deprive them of their deterrent arsenals?

What? You mean your chemical weapons only destroy other chemical weapons? Mr. Faisano, there is no reason at all why explosive ordinance with a highly advanced delivery system couldn't do that very same thing.

"Thank you. I'll be by the bar shortly."

[OOC: Tomorrow morning. I need sleep.]

O.o really? I didn't expect to actually continue the concept. I look forward to it!

This proposal makes me more sick than bubble gum ice cream.

Jorge Trenbakke
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations


Err...excuse me. What my deputy is trying to say is that Ceorana very strongly agrees with the delegations from Ausserland and Norderia. (Deputy Ambassador Trenbakke is fatally allergic to bubble gum ice cream.)

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations

What? You mean your chemical weapons only destroy other chemical weapons? Mr. Faisano, there is no reason at all why explosive ordinance with a highly advanced delivery system couldn't do that very same thing.Do you know what "deterrent" means?

This proposal makes me more sick than bubble gum ice cream.

Jorge Trenbakke
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations


Err...excuse me. What my deputy is trying to say is that Ceorana very strongly agrees with the delegations from Ausserland and Norderia. (Deputy Ambassador Trenbakke is fatally allergic to bubble gum ice cream.)

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United NationsWhoa. Big surprise, there. :rolleyes:

Do you know what "deterrent" means?

Yes. Weapons or other such contraband possessed for the purpose of deterring and enemy from attacking, out of fear of heavy losses. Tell me again how chemical agents can be considered necessary and more useful for destroying deterrent arsenals than conventional means. I seem to have missed that somewhere.

[OOC: You can go, this can wait til tomorrow]

The Wolf Guardians;11819949']O.o really? I didn't expect to actually continue the concept. I look forward to it![OOC: I told you, I'm tired. I need an excuse to get Sammy over to the Strangers' Bar, anyway.]

OOC:LOL, I never said you had to do it now, just that I look forward to it.


*Pokes author of OMGTKK* It better be there in the morning! lol

Do you know what "deterrent" means?

Whoa. Big surprise, there. :rolleyes:

OOC: Ya think? ;)

Yes. Weapons or other such contraband possessed for the purpose of deterring and enemy from attacking, out of fear of heavy losses. Tell me again how chemical agents can be considered necessary and more useful for destroying deterrent arsenals than conventional means. I seem to have missed that somewhere.Erm, OK. The first line you got right. I honestly don't know what the fuck the rest of your speech is supposed to be about.

It is precisely delegations such as these that demonstrate the need for Clause 7. The Ausserlanders and the Norderians may joy in meddling with member states' national-security affairs, but we do it, particularly in the face of the rogue 70 percent of the NS world not bound by UN mandates, free to arm themselves and attack member states with all the insane munitions they please.

And I'm sure attacking them back with the same barbaric, highly destructive, weapons is an excellent policy. Do I really have to go off on a tangent on the many faliures of the Mutually Assured Destruction system of self defence? The very idea is really quite silly, if they blow you up your last act is to blow them up. It's barbaric, if it comes to using nuclear weapons you've already lost, there is no winning a nuclear war...so why have nukes? Not to mention the inherent issues with chemical weapons and environmental damage, as well as the total unpredictability of biological weapons.


The only problem, of course, is preventing nations from using such weapons on civilians -- and oh, wait! This proposal already does something about that!


In this case I beleive where talking about weapons so powerful they cannot be used without affecting civilians. It is well known that even remote, high altitude tests of small nuclear weapons have adverse effects on the globe as a whole. Fallout from nuclear testing has been, by some scientists, held responsible for environmental issues such as global warming and the global rise in cancer and other diseases. Suffice it to say these weapons cannot be used, pretty much at all (OOC: excluding tech wanking) without hurting civilians.

And I'm sure attacking them back with the same barbaric, highly destructive, weapons is an excellent policy. Do I really have to go off on a tangent on the many faliures of the Mutually Assured Destruction system of self defence? The very idea is really quite silly, if they blow you up your last act is to blow them up. It's barbaric, if it comes to using nuclear weapons you've already lost, there is no winning a nuclear war...so why have nukes? Not to mention the inherent issues with chemical weapons and environmental damage, as well as the total unpredictability of biological weapons.Actually, for fifty years MAD was the only thing preventing all-out nuclear war. Of course, you're probably too young to remember this.

In this case I beleive where talking about weapons so powerful they cannot be used without affecting civilians. It is well known that even remote, high altitude tests of small nuclear weapons have adverse effects on the globe as a whole. Fallout from nuclear testing has been, by some scientists, held responsible for environmental issues such as global warming and the global rise in cancer and other diseases. Suffice it to say these weapons cannot be used, pretty much at all (OOC: excluding tech wanking) without hurting civilians.Yes, they can. Read Clause 6. Also, the proposal only outlaws "targeting" civilians.

Actually, for fifty years MAD was the only thing preventing all-out nuclear war. Of course, you're probably too young to remember this.

OOC:
I may not remember it, but I am not unfamiliar with history, do not assume a correlation between youth and ignorance, that would be a mistake on your part. MAD was not the only thing preventing nuclear war, in fact it probably brought us closer to nuclear war. The whole reason the cold war was so tense was because BOTH major sides (the US and Soviet Union) had masive nuclear arsenals. If the US did not have nukes, then the Soviet Union would not have had to build as many as they did to have superiority, thus there would have been no arms race. With no arms race nuclear testing would have been far more limited, as would the enviornmental damage we suffer from today. Most importatnly, the Soviets would not have had any need to use nuclear weapons, as if the US didn't ahve nukes, then the US didn't pose a big enough threat to have nukes used on them.

However, it didn't play out that way. Both sides had nukes, and with both having nukes they both had to try and make sure they would have first strike, which lead to nuclear positioning. American nukes in places like West Germany and in subs in the Pacific, and Russian nukes in sympathetic communist nations like Cuba. It was this nuclear position which lead to the Cuban missle crisis, in which the US was threatened by such close nukes. So in turn they threatened Russia with the biggest thing they had...more nukes. In turn, Russia threatened them with nukes...and we came within a hairs breadth of nuclear war.

Now, if the US hadn't had nukes, Russia wouldn't have had to put nukes in Cuba to acheive first strike, and even if they had, the US wouldn't have been able to threaten them with nukes, and Russia wouldn't have needed nukes to counter the Unites States' threats.

To summarize, the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction is far more likely to cause a nuclear war then the removal of nukes.

OOC, of course: MAD is the glue to the modern civilized world. The threat of such overkill retaliation really is an excellent deterrent. Without it, I'm sure our glorious America would never have made it this far.

Edit: So, you don't think the USSR would've destroyed America if there wasn't the knowledge that they would have immediately been destroyed? I think so.

-Your capitalist, nukemongering, grammar nazi'ing pig-dog,
the Author of Wolfgang

Edit: So, you don't think the USSR would've destroyed America if there wasn't the knowledge that they would have immediately been destroyed? I think so.

Actually, I don't think the Soviets would want to nuke the US into oblivion, they wheren't radical, insane, evil, or stupid enough to nuke random countries into oblivion, besides, if there was none to compete against, they wouldn't have that many nukes, or have advanced nuclear weapons technology nearly as fast, thus even if they nuked the US the US would have time for traditional retaliation, there would still be a brutal war. Canada doesn't have nukes, havn't for years (at some point we did, I don't know when but it was long ago) and we never fealt threatened by other powers with nukes, even if they posed a threat.

Heck, I'd trust the soviets with nukes more then I'd trust the States, dropping them willy-nilly all over Japan.

So... do you think that if Japan had had nuclear capability, we'd still have nuked them?

So... do you think that if Japan had had nuclear capability, we'd still have nuked them?

That's a tricky one. Mabye the US wouldn't have for fear of retaliation, mabye they would in order to remove Japan's nuclear capability, it's hard to call without details etc...although what I need you to understand is that MAD works if both sides already have nukes, but that you don't need it if you remove your nuclear capability, because removing your nuclear capability leaves you less threatening and thus, shall we say, less nuke-worthy.

Anyways, this is getting off topic, back to the legislation, which I'm still opposed to and still beleive is basically a blocker which allows the improper use of WMDs.

OOC: Damn, all this talk about MAD makes me want to play DEFCON. (http://www.everybody-dies.com/)

OOC and also unrelated: I agree, Flib. DEFCON is quite the game. I love the music, so... perfect for the game.

The Wolf Guardians]']So... do you think that if Japan had had nuclear capability, we'd still have nuked them?OOC: Sure - because they lacked the means to deliver a nuke to its target. That said...

Is this resolution legal? Doesn't it duplicate certain existing resolutions, while contradicting others?

For the record, Community Property opposes and will always oppose any proposal that doesn't advance the lofty goal of universal disarmament (which some people think is a stupid idea, but let them).

OOC: This is, of course, Community Property's IC position; what would you expect of a country run by communist, environmentalist, pacifist, pot smoking, hemp growing, fair trade loving student radicals (we love John Sinclair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sinclair_%28poet%29)!).

<The delegation begins passing out pirated CD's of the Blues Scholars (http://www.fireflyclub.com/gallery_band/sinclair.htm) playing Professor Longhair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Longhair) covers, with a free joint in the jewel case>

Is this resolution legal?I don't know. I'm not a moderator.

Doesn't it duplicate certain existing resolutions, ...No.

while contradicting others?No.

I suppose all of this is OOC

Actually, for fifty years MAD was the only thing preventing all-out nuclear war. Of course, you're probably too young to remember this.

Strange game ... the only way to win is ... not to play.

I think we could go on an on about the wisdom of MAD. Most analysis would be impossible as there is only MAD scenario to consider; the US/USSR cold war.

Or was there? Actually there was a MAD Jr. Around the end of the first world war, there was the violent threat of mutual assured death. In the technology level of the early 20th cetury this MAD was in a form of massive chemical weapon strikes. Gassing whole civilian populations from the comfort of air platforms was considered a significant threat to world security.

The world responded by banning chemical weapons outright. Even the collapsing Nazi Germany never resorted to the use of mass chemical weapons, so strong was the ban on the psyche of the world populations.

But WWII happened. Banning the weapons didn't stop people from waging conventional war against each other.

In the nuclear age we had a more powerful MAD. The genie was out of the bottle as it was and there was no way the USSR was not going to have and if necessary use it. Direct conflict between the US and USSR was generally avoided (except for the Cuban missle crisis). Instead the two nations played a deadly game of chess, each capturing the other's pawns. US funded armies fought USSR funded armies. A direct world war was avoided.

Also note: Had Japan had the bomb, they had the means to deliver it. This was a top secret in the US military, but we were bombed by Japan on a number of occasions. Paper hot air baloons, with simple bomb devices took advantage of the generally unknown jet stream to drop randomly around Washington State. It would be a significant feat to modify the system to carry a huge primitive nuclear device as that of the early US atomic betties, but it's technically possible.

Of course it's a major difference between pinpoint targeting of two major cities and a random nuking of some coastal wilderness.

bump.

I suppose all of this is OOC



Strange game ... the only way to win is ... not to play.


OOC: I was wondering when someone was going to make a Wargames reference.

Hey, remember that time we all got into an OOC pissing match about the Cold War? When we pretended this was the General Forum? Boy... wasn't that fucking awesome?!

Yeah.


Back on topic, I don't see anything illegal about this Proposal. If Community Property would like to point out which Resolution(s) is/are being contradicted/duplicated, I'll take a closer look.

You mean strip the UN of its ability to emasculate the defense capabilities of member states, and deprive them of their deterrent arsenals?

Erm, OK. The first line you got right. I honestly don't know what the fuck the rest of your speech is supposed to be about.
THAT'S what it's about. Your supposition that a UN ban on chemical weapons (even selective banning) would "strip the UN of its ability to emasculate the defensive capabilities of (non-)member states, and deprive them of their deterrent arsenals."

Tell me once again how chemical weapons are more capable of doing that than precision conventionaly weapons.

Furthermore, I'm surprised that you think hostile nations wouldn't find ways to adapt to the threat of chemical weaponry. No, simply put, the superiority of technically advanced militaries only propogates 4th generation warfare.

Chemical weapons are neither progressive, nor necessary. A blocker for such weapons would be abhorrent.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Read the sentence again. I wasn't talking about non-member states. Yeesh.

(OOC: Oh. emasculate... IMmasculate. I knew something was off, I assumed it was a typo... Shite.)

IC: Conceded. I've been getting lazy and writing notes in Norderian. Reading the English threw me off.

To be honest, though, I think mutually assured destruction is about the only thing that works as a deterrent. I don't see how a well-designed delivery system for conventional arms cannot serve the purpose as well as chemical weapons. "We can make your soldiers bleed from their pores! HAHAHAHAHA!" "I can fly a missile up a mosquito's ass from 3,000 miles away. You don't scare me."

There's no need to open the can of worms of chemical weaponry. For once, let's not further develop such machines for destruction as did the governments of the nuclear age. Enough is enough. I'll not sit by while the UN strips itself of its ability to quell the onset of malefactions that come of chemical or biological weaponry.

[OOC: Sorry to start and stop, but I need to get to sleep. I've already limited myself to 5 hours tonight.]

The world responded by banning chemical weapons outright. Even the collapsing Nazi Germany never resorted to the use of mass chemical weapons, so strong was the ban on the psyche of the world populations.

OOC _ Nazi Germany's alleged "compliance" with that ban didn't keep it from producing chemcial weapons or, indeed, from using them for the attempted genocide of captive civilians (look up the term 'Zyklon B'...): What kept it from using them against the UK was apparently -- at least once the western Allies' air-forces had started bombing German cities regularly -- a fear of retaliation in kind...

OOC _ Nazi Germany's alleged "compliance" with that ban didn't keep it from producing chemcial weapons or, indeed, from using them for the attempted genocide of captive civilians: What kept it from using them against the UK was apparently -- once Allied air-forces had started bombing German cities regularly -- a fear of retaliation in kind...
OOC: And the fact that Hitler thought Britain was sufficiently well prepared that a chemical attack would be fruitless.

At the risk of dragging this back on topic, then, I'd suggest that if, should this go through, people are concerned about chemical weapons but unable to prohibit them, a resolution on civil defence might be a better way of tackling the problem.

At the risk of dragging this back on topic, then, I'd suggest that if, should this go through, people are concerned about chemical weapons but unable to prohibit them, a resolution on civil defence might be a better way of tackling the problem.

Elaborate?

Elaborate?
I'm saying: if the resolution does pass, it's not the end of the world for those who don't want chemical weapons used. A resolution that promoted developing civil defences and countermeasures against chemical weapons might well prove reasonably effective at mitigating the risks by granting nations the right to develop such weapons.

I don't want to derail this thread into discussion of a different proposal: all I'm saying is, for those not wild on chemical weapons being used, this proposal wouldn't be [b]it[/i].

I'd just as soon not have this go through with clause 6 and 7. A Resolution for civil defense and such seems to me to be secondary in effectiveness to any means that would be prevented by this.

Due to what we view as overly broad and negative implications caused by Clauses 6 and 7, I have no choice but to state my government's opposition to this proposal.

OOC _ Nazi Germany's alleged "compliance" with that ban didn't keep it from producing chemcial weapons or, indeed, from using them for the attempted genocide of captive civilians (look up the term 'Zyklon B'...): What kept it from using them against the UK was apparently -- at least once the western Allies' air-forces had started bombing German cities regularly -- a fear of retaliation in kind...

OOC: Also, it is belived that Hitler's own survival of a gas attack probally influenced his orders not to use the damned things on Britian.

Mr. Olembe; I think I understand your issues with this as a blocker. I'm currently awaiting word from our Military Legal Team about the possibilities for overcoming the problem. I fear they won't be overly successful.

On to a few other issues;

The argument about deterrence is mildly humourous. I'm not really sure why, but it makes me chuckle. I think that the point of using non-conventional weapons as deterrents is not so much that regular weaponry won't do the trick, but more that people will be more fearful of a fate that they can't predict. When you know that retaliation will result in an explosion and your death, you can make peace with that. When there's a chance that your face will melt off, your hands will turn to fishes, and your bones will walk away without you, it becomes a bit more difficult to come to terms with the fact that you have no idea exactly what form a counter attack will take. That's where the deterring factor of BCW's comes in.

It does not take a great deal of high tech to develop, utilize, or defend against all bcw's. Pissing on a rag to minimize the effects of mustard gas comes to mind.

Hey, remember that time we all got into an OOC pissing match about the Cold War? When we pretended this was the General Forum? Boy... wasn't that fucking awesome?!


Then we all had ice cream. That's what I call a sticky situation. :p

I think that the point of using non-conventional weapons as deterrents is not so much that regular weaponry won't do the trick, but more that people will be more fearful of a fate that they can't predict. When you know that retaliation will result in an explosion and your death, you can make peace with that. When there's a chance that your face will melt off, your hands will turn to fishes, and your bones will walk away without you, it becomes a bit more difficult to come to terms with the fact that you have no idea exactly what form a counter attack will take. That's where the deterring factor of BCW's comes in.

The intentions are ignoble then. I also find it hard to believe that military and political leaders wouldn't be as wise in regards to smart bombs than they would be with chemical and biological weapons. If one is dead, one is dead, and everyone knows that. How one dies becomes a secondary concern when the question is life or death.

I am unconvinced that nations need to be protected from a blocker against chemical and biological weapons. The idea is abhorrent to me.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

IC: The Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia......

OOC: ....Oh I dunno, just generally goes off ;) He orders the nuking of a couple of his cities and carpet-bombing of a couple more by B-52s full of anthrax while he tortures fluffly kittens, then says his UN puppet won't vote for it and Excruciatia will still make and sell as many nasties as it can ;)

Guess who is on Santa's naughty list? :rolleyes: :D

Any suggestions for strength level? I've tried following Fris's advisories on the subject, but I can't decide if this would be a Significant or Strong proposal.

I am aware that there has been much discussion already on the subject of Clauses 6 and 7, but I have an issue and a question that I would like to have cleared up on the following clause.

6. Encouraging nations to share technologies for the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel, mitigate civilian damage, and serve as alternatives to more deadly and destructive forms of chemical and biological warfare;

I understand the idea behind the clause - if the developmental focus is on chemical arms which have few or none civilian casualties, then the less aim-specific weaponry will fall out of usage. However, one cannot design a technology to specifically target solely military and/or political personnel. There is nothing intrinsically different about a member of a nation's military and a civilian of the same nation that would allow one to create a chemical weapon that would only affect them. One can only design a technology that allows you to specifically designate a person or group of people by aim; similar to the difference between an explosive round and a bomb.

My point is that there is nothing in the technologies themselves that would prevent the deaths of civilians. A terrorist organization or government can undoubtedly use the specific-aim technology to target a particular civilian (such as a popular celebrity), and so on - the existence of which has been already asserted by the statements earlier that essentially related to 'deterrence by fear'. Any application it can be used for amongst military personnel can be mimicked among the civilians. Therefore I fail to see how the sharing and development of chemical arms technologies geared towards specific aiming are accomplishing the goal your proposal claims to have set out to do.

On the second point: my question relates to the particular phrase "serve as alternatives to more deadly and destructive forms of chemical and biological warfare". I do believe that there is nothing less deadly about specifically targetted chemical weapons. Less destructive, quite probably. Less deadly? The people targetted by the encouraged chemical weaponry end up just as dead as the people who are targetted by mass-distribution chemical weaponry - possibly more so. So my question is, how exactly do you see targetted chemical weapons as being less deadly?

~Lady Sara~
Speaker of Eirisle

Any suggestions for strength level? I've tried following Fris's advisories on the subject, but I can't decide if this would be a Significant or Strong proposal.

When in doubt, go for the lesser effect.

The text remains just as strong, but some nations pay no attention to the text and base their vote exclusively on the effect. Significant is less of a hit than Strong, and you may gain a few approvals or votes simply on that basis.

Sorry to throw sand in the vaseline, but how exactly does this "slash worldwide military spending" or "reduce government spending on the police and military", much less by a significant amount?

It seems to me that, considering clauses 6 & 7, the overall effect would be to increase military spending.

Sorry to throw sand in the vaseline, but how exactly does this "slash worldwide military spending" or "reduce government spending on the police and military", much less by a significant amount?

It seems to me that, considering clauses 6 & 7, the overall effect would be to increase military spending.Clause 7 has no new effect on nations; clause 6 merely "encourages" -- the rest of the resolution barring specific uses of weaponry is much stronger, meaning overall, this would limit what nations can do militarily. Hence Global Disarmament.

Clause 7 has no new effect on nations; clause 6 merely "encourages" -- the rest of the resolution barring specific uses of weaponry is much stronger, meaning overall, this would limit what nations can do militarily. Hence Global Disarmament.
Yes, but it doesn't require any reduction in those stockpiles, it only addresses how they may be used. Then clause 6 says: "6. Encouraging the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel"
This sounds like it encourages the production of more chemical weapons. (also, as an aside, "chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel"? How would that work, exactly?)

Then clause 7 says: "7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right."
At the very least, this will lead to arsenals being maintained at their current levels. Most likely, nations will see this as a green light to build whatever they want and it will lead to an increase.

I'm still not seeing how this will "slash worldwide military spending" by significant levels.

(also, as an aside, "chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel"? How would that work, exactly?)
FoxDie

At the very least, this will lead to arsenals being maintained at their current levels. Most likely, nations will see this as a green light to build whatever they want and it will lead to an increase.

I'm still not seeing how this will "slash worldwide military spending" by significant levels.

A problem that could easily be solved by striking clauses 6 and 7, in my opinion. I think that would be the way to go, don't you all agree? *looks around nodding optimistically* Yeah, I think we all agree, let's do that, Kenny.

In reviewing the list of submitted proposals, we noted that this one has been submitted in the "Global Disarmament" category. We strongly believe that this is a clear and obvious category violation and that the proposal should be deleted.

Clause 6 of the proposal "encourages" the development of certain types of chemical weapons. Clause 7 is a "blocker" of any proposal that might seek to limit chemical weapons or expand the coverage of the current resolution on biological weapons through a repeal/replace.

This misguided attempt to preserve unrestricted license to produce, stockpile and use chemical weapons and non-contagious biologicals is the antithesis of a true "Global Disarmament" proposal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Back on topic, I don't see anything illegal about this Proposal.I can only assume Hack did not "see" the proposed category/strength, clearly posted above the text?

Amusing how the only ones who deem this a "category violation" are those who already are categorically opposed to this proposal, huh? Must be because this has nothing to do with the category, or the strength? We would be having this same discussion even if this had been proposed as Mild or under another category like Human Rights.

Look, I don't mind so-called "rules-lawyering" when proposals contain glaring or otherwise obvious violations, but all this nitpicking and trying to kill disagreeable proposals on mere technicalities really does get tiresome.

I can only assume Hack did not "see" the proposed category/strength, clearly posted above the text?

Amusing how the only ones who deem this a "category violation" are those who already are categorically opposed to this proposal, huh? Must be because this has nothing to do with the category, or the strength? We would be having this same discussion even if this had been proposed as Mild or under another category like Human Rights.

Look, I don't mind so-called "rules-lawyering" when proposals contain glaring or otherwise obvious violations, but all this nitpicking and trying to kill disagreeable proposals on mere technicalities really does get tiresome.

Get used to it, this is one we're going to fight with everything it can be fought with.

I can only assume Hack did not "see" the proposed category/strength, clearly posted above the text?

Amusing how the only ones who deem this a "category violation" are those who already are categorically opposed to this proposal, huh? Must be because this has nothing to do with the category, or the strength? We would be having this same discussion even if this had been proposed as Mild or under another category like Human Rights.

Look, I don't mind so-called "rules-lawyering" when proposals contain glaring or otherwise obvious violations, but all this nitpicking and trying to kill disagreeable proposals on mere technicalities really does get tiresome.

We'd be hard-pressed to think of a more "glaring or otherwise obvious" violation than trying to pass off a proposal which endorses and facilitates proliferation of chemical and biological weapons as being in the "Global Disarmament" category.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Get used to it, this is one we're going to fight with everything it can be fought with.
You can take "modbomb" out of your arsenal. I'm agreeing with Hack, and explicitly stating (for the SECOND time) that the categorisation is legal.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator

You can take "modbomb" out of your arsenal. I'm agreeing with Hack, and explicitly stating (for the SECOND time) that the categorisation is legal.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
Thanks Fris. I just wanted to cover all the bases. I didn't want to be thinking later "damn, I wish i had challenged the categorization/strength when I had the chance".

I can only assume Hack did not "see" the proposed category/strength, clearly posted above the text?

Amusing how the only ones who deem this a "category violation" are those who already are categorically opposed to this proposal, huh? Must be because this has nothing to do with the category, or the strength? We would be having this same discussion even if this had been proposed as Mild or under another category like Human Rights.

Look, I don't mind so-called "rules-lawyering" when proposals contain glaring or otherwise obvious violations, but all this nitpicking and trying to kill disagreeable proposals on mere technicalities really does get tiresome.

Well at least we haven't mounted a multi-nation TG campaign against it, with some saying it would do one thing, others saying it would do something else, and defaming your character in the process. We could, but we won't. This needs to reach quorum, come to a vote and be soundly rejected by the GA.

Get used to it, this is one we're going to fight with everything it can be fought with.

Yeah, good luck with that, man. But hey, have a flower.

http://static.flickr.com/33/53998879_d023fc31ec_m.jpg

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Civilians are persons who do not serve an important national political function

Such as voting for their government?

history stuff

From what I've learnt it seems that the 1945 atomic bombings weren't necessary to defeat Japan. They had already recognised that they'd lost and were making peace overtures to the Allies through the Soviet Union. The timing of the atomic bombings just after the USSR was due to enter the war against Japan (following the surrender of Nazi Germany) suggests the US wanted to end the war quickly so the USSR wouldn't gain territory in Asia as they did in Europe. Hence, the need to bomb Japan at all as a means to win the war is questionable. The Grand Alliance was already fracturing with Germany defeated and it's more likely the US wanted to a) stop the USSR gaining ground, and b) scare Stalin.

Furthermore, the USSR sought nuclear parity, not superiority. They knew their economy couldn't handle it, and it wasn't necessary to deter the US from nuking them. Just a small detail. In any case, whether MAD is good or bad is irrelevant once anyone has nuclear weapons, or the capability to build them - even total disarmanent doesn't work because there's still the ability to make them. It became the only way to deter nuclear war, and to a large extent it still is. That is why the idea of the US missile shield scares me, quite apart from the seeming attitude in Washington that "Canada has sovereignty?!"

Civilians are persons who do not serve an important national political function

Such as voting for their government?


VOTING??!! HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

But yeah, even in Excruciatia civilians "serve an important national political function", either as draftees, or as target practice :D

We have some questions regarding definitions. We have developed a number of psychopharmalogical munitions. Some might fall under the police varieties i.e. gay spray, hiberzine gas, and mem x. Others are not so benevolent. We would like a clearer definition of the break between "police" weapons and chemical weapons.

Such as voting for their government?Don't be silly.

From what I've learnt it seems that the 1945 atomic bombings weren't necessary to defeat Japan. They had already recognised that they'd lost and were making peace overtures to the Allies through the Soviet Union. The timing of the atomic bombings just after the USSR was due to enter the war against Japan (following the surrender of Nazi Germany) suggests the US wanted to end the war quickly so the USSR wouldn't gain territory in Asia as they did in Europe. Hence, the need to bomb Japan at all as a means to win the war is questionable. The Grand Alliance was already fracturing with Germany defeated and it's more likely the US wanted to a) stop the USSR gaining ground, and b) scare Stalin.

Furthermore, the USSR sought nuclear parity, not superiority. They knew their economy couldn't handle it, and it wasn't necessary to deter the US from nuking them. Just a small detail. In any case, whether MAD is good or bad is irrelevant once anyone has nuclear weapons, or the capability to build them - even total disarmanent doesn't work because there's still the ability to make them. It became the only way to deter nuclear war, and to a large extent it still is. That is why the idea of the US missile shield scares me, quite apart from the seeming attitude in Washington that "Canada has sovereignty?!"Don't be a know-it-all, either. As enlightening as all these history lectures have been, I'm certain all you wannabe professors would find a more appropriate sanctuary in General.

Well at least we haven't mounted a multi-nation TG campaign against it, with some saying it would do one thing, others saying it would do something else, and defaming your character in the process. We could, but we won't.I never did that. You're thinking of Dorksonia.

We have some questions regarding definitions. We have developed a number of psychopharmalogical munitions. Some might fall under the police varieties i.e. gay spray, hiberzine gas, and mem x. Others are not so benevolent. We would like a clearer definition of the break between "police" weapons and chemical weapons.The Knootian gay-spray card? Hehe. That's funny. :D

I never did that. You're thinking of Dorksonia.
I was speaking rhetorically, Ambassador. We could have done those things but didn't. What are you talking about?

So, the stated purpose of this proposal is to "slash worldwide military spending" by a significant amount. The preamble and clauses 1 - 5 cover the uses of unconventional arms but don't require, or even suggest, a reduction of the actual arsenals. Clause 6 encourages the development of new chemical weapons. Clause 7 states: "Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary". That doesn't sound like a reduction either.

I would like the author to explain, in as many words as he deems necessary, what clauses 6 & 7 are doing in what otherwise could have been a very good Global Disarmament proposal. Is the purpose of this proposal to "slash worldwide military spending", or do clauses 6 & 7 give it some other purpose? If so, would you care to elaborate on just what it's purpose might be?

Truthfully, I might be willing to concede the point on clause 6. It would be nice if we could develop weapons that only targeted military personnel. I think, though, that you will find the solution to that particular dilemma in the area of nanoweapons, not chemicals. But, since the proposal suggests we start spending money on it...

What happened to that Iron Felix cat? We liked that dude...

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

What happened to that Iron Felix cat? We liked that dude...

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Felix isn't well, he stayed back at the hotel.

Felix isn't well, he stayed back at the hotel.

So they sent you along as a surrogate delegate?

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

So they sent you along as a surrogate delegate?

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
OOC: :D Now I've got all these alternate lyrics in my head.

Are there any sovereigntists in the theater tonight?
Get them up against the wall. (against the wall)
Theres one in the spotlight. HE DON'T LOOK RIGHT TO ME!
Get him up against the wall. (against the wall)
etc.

OOC: :D Now I've got all these alternate lyrics in my head.

Are there any fluffies in the theater tonight?
Get them up against the wall. (against the wall)
Theres one in the spotlight. HE DON'T LOOK RIGHT TO ME!
Get him up against the wall. (against the wall)
etc.

OOC: Fixed. ;)

Who let all this riff-raff into the room?

Who let all this riff-raff into the room?

Hey, man...I may be smoking a joint, but at least I don't have spots...

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

So, the stated purpose of this proposal is to "slash worldwide military spending" by a significant amount. The preamble and clauses 1 - 5 cover the uses of unconventional arms but don't require, or even suggest, a reduction of the actual arsenals. Clause 6 encourages the development of new chemical weapons. Clause 7 states: "Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary". That doesn't sound like a reduction either.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Haven't made up my mind on this yet.

It could be argued that within the context of the resolution, certain weapons are being reduced. The category doesn't make the dinstinction between reduction of all weapons and the reduction of some; therefore it is plausible to reduce offensive weapons while not reducing defensive weapons.

Additionally, Clause 7 simply affirms the right of nations to develop weapons, it does not advocate their development, nor suggest that they be developed. The wording affirms the right to develop weapons.

I would like the author to explain, in as many words as he deems necessary, what clauses 6 & 7 are doing in what otherwise could have been a very good Global Disarmament proposal. Is the purpose of this proposal to "slash worldwide military spending", or do clauses 6 & 7 give it some other purpose? If so, would you care to elaborate on just what it's purpose might be?

I am inclined to interpret the text as "slashing worldwide military funding" for offensive weapons. Like I said above, the category doesn't seem to distinguish between defensive and offensive weapons.

Truthfully, I might be willing to concede the point on clause 6. It would be nice if we could develop weapons that only targeted military personnel. I think, though, that you will find the solution to that particular dilemma in the area of nanoweapons, not chemicals. But, since the proposal suggests we start spending money on it...

Again, I'm playing devil's advocate, but I would argue that the resolution does not actually increase military spending, but rather reappropriates it. If, as I have argued, the proposal works to reduce offensive weapons and cut funding for offensive weapons, the money can then be shifted to defensive weapons development. While sneaky, this fulfills the stated aim to slash funding to a certain area of weapons development. The funds are then reappropriated to a different sector.

At least, this is what I've gotten out of it. I haven't formulated an opinion on the proposal yet, and am merely trying to engage rational debate. I could be completely mistaken on the category issues, though.

Comments? I would much appreciate it if the author would point out any mistakes with my interpretation.

I too would like to see what good intentions lie behind Clauses 6 and especially 7. I think it is safe to assume, given the wording of the proposal, and the rather obvious attitude of the Kennyites that the blocker against any and all future disarmament Resolutions is the goal (and the delicious irony that a global disarmament resolution would block the global disarmament category).

I can ask the delegate to justify it, but really I'm sure all I'd get is something about necessity for the protection of its people from those terrible outsiders. That same "We're all gonna be killed unless we're armed to the teeth!" idea that has seen thousands of empires, great and small rise and collapse under the weight of their own superiority. And, well, I just don't buy it. Because the only people who ever make threats to countries like mine are the countries that think like the Kennyites.

The category doesn't make the dinstinction between reduction of all weapons and the reduction of some; therefore it is plausible to reduce offensive weapons while not reducing defensive weapons.

No indeed, it doesn't, however the clause in question states, "Affirms the right for nations ... any and all weapons ... it deems necessary." No distinction made in the universal blocker of disarmament.

I can ask the delegate to justify it, but really I'm sure all I'd get is something about necessity for the protection of its people from those terrible outsiders. That same "We're all gonna be killed unless we're armed to the teeth!" idea that has seen thousands of empires, great and small rise and collapse under the weight of their own superiority. And, well, I just don't buy it. Because the only people who ever make threats to countries like mine are the countries that think like the Kennyites.

That's not true, man. My government's threatened your nation a bunch of times, and we're a lot smarter than the Kennyites (not that that's really saying much).

Here, have a flower.

http://www.robsplants.com/images/portrait/PapaverPaeoniflorum050610.jpg

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I was speaking rhetorically, Ambassador.That's "Commander" to you, buddy.

What happened to that Iron Felix cat? We liked that dude...Isn't it obvious? They had to tuck him away for this discussion. It just wouldn't look right for a notorious militant defenestrating lunatic to be speaking out in favor of arms control, now would it? We trust Mr. Felix is resting well in his crypt, or cryo-regeneration tube, or wherever it is the undead sleep.

So, the stated purpose of this proposal is to "slash worldwide military spending" by a significant amount. The preamble and clauses 1 - 5 cover the uses of unconventional arms but don't require, or even suggest, a reduction of the actual arsenals. Clause 6 encourages the development of new chemical weapons. Clause 7 states: "Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary". That doesn't sound like a reduction either.

I would like the author to explain, in as many words as he deems necessary, what clauses 6 & 7 are doing in what otherwise could have been a very good Global Disarmament proposal. Is the purpose of this proposal to "slash worldwide military spending", or do clauses 6 & 7 give it some other purpose? If so, would you care to elaborate on just what it's purpose might be?I believe it's obvious that part of defending civilians from chemical or biological warfare is to ensure that nations have the right to a credible deterrent arsenal. The moderators have already addressed this, and we will acknowledge no further discussion on the categorization of this proposal.

Truthfully, I might be willing to concede the point on clause 6. It would be nice if we could develop weapons that only targeted military personnel. I think, though, that you will find the solution to that particular dilemma in the area of nanoweapons, not chemicals. But, since the proposal suggests we start spending money on it...Oh, for God's sake; this has nothing to do with "magical" chemical agents that only target certain people. We are talking about tactical weapons designed to mitigate the effects to outlying civilian areas and reduce collateral damage. There really is no other application for such arms save hitting legitimate military/political targets; if you're only using chemical weaponry to slaughter civilians, what's the point of limiting the damage?

Cmdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

I too would like to see what good intentions lie behind Clauses 6 and especially 7. I think it is safe to assume, given the wording of the proposal, and the rather obvious attitude of the Kennyites that the blocker against any and all future disarmament Resolutions is the goal (and the delicious irony that a global disarmament resolution would block the global disarmament category).

I can ask the delegate to justify it, but really I'm sure all I'd get is something about necessity for the protection of its people from those terrible outsiders. That same "We're all gonna be killed unless we're armed to the teeth!" idea that has seen thousands of empires, great and small rise and collapse under the weight of their own superiority. And, well, I just don't buy it. Because the only people who ever make threats to countries like mine are the countries that think like the Kennyites.Continued demagoguery and defamatory statements will earn you no future responses from this delegation at all, buckeroo.

~Cmdr. Chiang

Continued demagoguery and defamatory statements will earn you no future responses from this delegation at all, buckeroo.

~Cmdr. Chiang

Come up against a wall, Commander? I get the feeling that you don't have a justification for this greater than "We don't want the UN taking our new playthings" and that you know admitting it will hurt your chances getting this passed.

Come up against a wall, Commander? I get the feeling that you don't have a justification for this greater than "We don't want the UN taking our new playthings" and that you know admitting it will hurt your chances getting this passed.We've already addressed Clause 7; perhaps you should go back and read the transcript?

I believe it's obvious that part of defending civilians from chemical or biological warfare is to ensure that nations have the right to a credible deterrent arsenal. The moderators have already addressed this, and we will acknowledge no further discussion on the categorization of this proposal.

Cmdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

Commander Chiang is entirely correct. One means to properly defend one's nation and its populace is maintenance of a credible deterrent capability. Where she fails Military Science 101 is in her inability to understand the difference between credible or effective deterrent and necessary deterrent. The idea that, in order to deter chemical or biological attack, I must have chemical or biological capability is absurd.

Anselm G. Blorck
Major General, Army of Ausserland
Deputy Minister (National Security Affairs)

We've already addressed Clause 7; perhaps you should go back and read the transcript?

Fine. If you've fully expounded your justifications and reasons for Clause 7, then Norderia is unalterably opposed.

Commander Chiang is entirely correct. One means to properly defend one's nation and its populace is maintenance of a credible deterrent capability. Where she fails Military Science 101 is in her inability to understand the difference between credible or effective deterrent and necessary deterrent. The idea that, in order to deter chemical or biological attack, I must have chemical or biological capability is absurd.We never said "must." The proposal does not say "must." Nor does Clause 7 specify chemical or biological weaponry. The purpose of the final clause is to allow nations to decide for themselves what constitutes a "credible," "effective" or "necessary" deterrent in order to defend themselves against aggressive foreign powers with dangerous weapons -- without interference from UN bureaucrats. In our view, such critical decisions on national security are best left to those primarily charged with defending their nations, not grubby gnomes who don't know the first thing about what sorts of arsenals individual member states require to ward off attacks.

And the rest of the proposal, which the opponents have done well to ignore? It prevents nations from using destructive weapons to commit war crimes. That is a reasonable mandate to impose upon UN nations when affirming their right to decide upon their own deterrent arsenals. And as far as this delegation is concerned, that is as far as the United Nations should go.

Cmdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

Fine. If you've fully expounded your justifications and reasons for Clause 7, then Norderia is unalterably opposed.I suppose your opposition was "alterable" before? :rolleyes:

Don't be silly.

How is that silly? Do you not consider voting an "important national political function"? A great number of UN members are democracies, and voting is what the government's legitimacy is based on.

And,

The intentional slaughter of innocent civilians through unconventional warfare is a heinous and contemptible act.

Why not make it, "The intentional slaughter of innocent civilians, especially through unconventional warfare is a heinous and contemptible act"? Otherwise it seems like you're saying it's okay to kill civillians if you don't use "unconventional weapons".

Don't be a know-it-all, either. As enlightening as all these history lectures have been, I'm certain all you wannabe professors would find a more appropriate sanctuary in General.

I don't really have a problem with your resolution and I'm willing to support if article 6 is dropped; my objection is mainly that I don't see how these weapons can be made to affect target only certain people and I'd rather just ban them altogether. On the other hand, if you want to be an ass, I might be against on the basis of not liking you.

We never said "must." The proposal does not say "must." Nor does Clause 7 specify chemical or biological weaponry. The purpose of the final clause is to allow nations to decide for themselves what constitutes a "credible," "effective" or "necessary" deterrent in order to defend themselves against aggressive foreign powers with dangerous weapons -- without interference from UN bureaucrats. In our view, such critical decisions on national security are best left to those primarily charged with defending their nations, not grubby gnomes who don't know the first thing about what sorts of arsenals individual member states require to ward off attacks.


Please, Commander.... Don't play silly word games with us. Your attempt to claim a difference between "must" and "necessary" just highlights the fact that you're incapable of effectively countering reasonable argument. The proposal allows national governments to determine for themselves that chemical and biological weapons are "necessary" for national defense. So let me put two questions directly:

1. Are possession of chemical and biological weapons a necessary deterrent to use by potential enemies of chemical and biological weapons?

2. Are chemical and biological weapons effective countermeasures to chemical or biological attack?

Further, the purpose of the final clause is not to keep "UN bureaucrats" or "grubby gnomes" from making decisions about the necessity of weaponry. It's to keep the members of this Assembly from making such decisions. You want to allow any national leader who decides he wants to to produce and stockpile all the bugs and gas he wants. At least admit that.

And finally.... You're right. The last clause does not specify chemical and biological weapons. It would also bar meaningful restrictions on radiological weapons and other noxious instruments of death. But being in a proposal that's otherwise devoted to those weapons would sort of lead one to suspect that was the major thrust of the provision, wouldn't it?

Maj. Gen. Anselm G. Blorck, A.A.
Deputy Minister (National Security Affairs)

I suppose your opposition was "alterable" before? :rolleyes:
Perhaps it's our history of strongly disagreeing with one another leads you to believe that. I think, however, that given the nature of Clause 7, and to a lesser (but not inconsiderable) extent Clause 6, the very fact that I didn't stick my fingers in my ears and chant "I'm not listening!" suggests that I was willing to dialogue. At this point though, you're dancing around the major fact -- This Resolution is a total disarmament blocker. Because so long as any leader deems something necessary for their protection, there are no holds barred. Purely unacceptable.

Please, Commander.... Don't play silly word games with us. Your attempt to claim a difference between "must" and "necessary" just highlights the fact that you're incapable of effectively countering reasonable argument. The proposal allows national governments to determine for themselves that chemical and biological weapons are "necessary" for national defense. So let me put two questions directly:

1. Are possession of chemical and biological weapons a necessary deterrent to use by potential enemies of chemical and biological weapons?

2. Are chemical and biological weapons effective countermeasures to chemical or biological attack?

Further, the purpose of the final clause is not to keep "UN bureaucrats" or "grubby gnomes" from making decisions about the necessity of weaponry. It's to keep the members of this Assembly from making such decisions. You want to allow any national leader who decides he wants to to produce and stockpile all the bugs and gas he wants. At least admit that.

And finally.... You're right. The last clause does not specify chemical and biological weapons. It would also bar meaningful restrictions on radiological weapons and other noxious instruments of death. But being in a proposal that's otherwise devoted to those weapons would sort of lead one to suspect that was the major thrust of the provision, wouldn't it?

Maj. Gen. Anselm G. Blorck, A.A.
Deputy Minister (National Security Affairs)

Quoted for emphasis. This is not a Resolution necessary for self-defense except in the eyes of those who tremble with the idea that the UN might do even the slightest thing to damage the opportunity to build or possess new toys. New, terrible, death-making toys.

That's "Commander" to you, buddy.
Duly noted. You may address me as ambassador, since I am currently acting in that capacity.

We trust Mr. Felix is resting well in his crypt, or cryo-regeneration tube, or wherever it is the undead sleep.
Felix is resting comfortably. Thank you for your concern.

I believe it's obvious that part of defending civilians from chemical or biological warfare is to ensure that nations have the right to a credible deterrent arsenal.
That's not what I was asking though. What I was really looking for was an explanation of the purpose of clause 7 within this proposal. Furthermore, what is the, for lack of a better term, "overall purpose" of the proposal itself? Is it the laudable goal of preventing the use of these weapons against civilian populations, or is it the prevention of future UN arms control legislation? If it is the former, why was clause 7 included? Would you mind explaining more fully?
The moderators have already addressed this, and we will acknowledge no further discussion on the categorization of this proposal.
And we have already acknowledged the moderator ruling and accepted it. I was merely providing backgroud facts for the questions which followed.

Oh, for God's sake; this has nothing to do with "magical" chemical agents that only target certain people. We are talking about tactical weapons designed to mitigate the effects to outlying civilian areas and reduce collateral damage.
Really? What do these wordsEncouraging the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel
mean? Do you understand how chemical arms work within a battlefield environment? Have you ever ordered their deployment? I have. They are not very discriminatory in their effects, nor are they fully dependable. Hence, they are no longer included in the Yeldan inventory. There are far more efficient ways to kill, Commander.
There really is no other application for such arms save hitting legitimate military/political targets; if you're only using chemical weaponry to slaughter civilians, what's the point of limiting the damage?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Do you mean the chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel, or something else?

I await your reply.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Attache, Yeldan Committee For State Security
Acting Ambassador

We rise in support of this glorious and enlightened proposal to...

*thwap*

...YOBANY STOS! Something has bitten the back of my neck.

As I was saying, we riiis iiiin suuupooooooooooor......

*thump*

I'm terribly sorry about that. Felix still isn't feeling well.

*turns to aide*

Get him out of here, now!

Perhaps it's our history of strongly disagreeing with one another leads you to believe that. I think, however, that given the nature of Clause 7, and to a lesser (but not inconsiderable) extent Clause 6, the very fact that I didn't stick my fingers in my ears and chant "I'm not listening!" suggests that I was willing to dialogue. At this point though, you're dancing around the major fact -- This Resolution is a total disarmament blocker. Because so long as any leader deems something necessary for their protection, there are no holds barred. Purely unacceptable.How is this "purely unacceptable"? And how is a block on weapons bans alone a "total disarmament blocker"? We are well aware that Clause 7 blocks weapons bans and that you do not like that. Do you have anything new to say? We have addressed concerns about blocking weapons bans multiple times -- would you have anything in response to those statements, or are you content with emotive grandstanding and empty rhetoric?

Quoted for emphasis. This is not a Resolution necessary for self-defense except in the eyes of those who tremble with the idea that the UN might do even the slightest thing to damage the opportunity to build or possess new toys. New, terrible, death-making toys.Quoting Ausserland at length and saying, in effect, "Me too!" is not going to win you many points in this discussion.

[OOC: Auss and Yelda, I'll reply later.]

How is this "purely unacceptable"?
You want to block Resolutions that aim to disarm. Which is to say goodbye to any attempts by the UN to do away with any lovely new things sadistic folks think up. If someone invents a bean-sized bomb capable of putting a hole in the earth the size of the moon and deems it necessary for their country's safety, well, we're just gonna have to bend down and take it. If you don't find that unacceptable, then may whatever god you choose have mercy on your soul.

And how is a block on weapons bans alone a "total disarmament blocker"? We are well aware that Clause 7 blocks weapons bans and that you do not like that.
Answer to your own question there. Clause 7 blocks weapons bans. Which is to say, no more disarmament Resolutions. Note, I'm not talking about the category.

Do you have anything new to say? We have addressed concerns about blocking weapons bans multiple times -- would you have anything in response to those statements, or are you content with emotive grandstanding and empty rhetoric?
Your responses amount to such egregious false alternatives such as "If we don't have uberweapons, our country will be doomed!" Sorry that you feel so insecure about your own borders, but I don't buy it. You want to get as much and as big of toys as you can, and you don't want the UN to slap your hand and say no. I'll be plenty happy to keep on saying so, page after page, because this Resolution deserves no less a fight than that.

Quoting Ausserland at length and saying, in effect, "Me too!" is not going to win you many points in this discussion.
Couldn't care less about points. Just trying to ensure that you paid extra close attention to it so you don't see two commissions again.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

koff-koff

Seeing as how we've topped 100 posts already, I figure I might as well ask: are you planning to create a(nother) new thread for the vote, or will this one be used?

koff-koff

Seeing as how we've topped 100 posts already, I figure I might as well ask: are you planning to create a(nother) new thread for the vote, or will this one be used?http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=504722

If someone invents a bean-sized bomb capable of putting a hole in the earth the size of the moon and deems it necessary for their country's safety....

Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

The Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia thanks the Norderian Ambassador for the idea and gets his scientists to work on the project.

The Kingdom of Anago cannot support this resolution as currently worded. As evidenced by the heated discussions in this forum, there exists altogether too many ambiguities or contradictions within the proposal itself to be considered for passage in its current form.

It is clear that this proposal contains language that is universally acceptable and were that language to be presented as a proposal alone, it would have a strong chance of passage. Unfortunately, there is language riding on this proposal that is not acceptable, either by nature or by the technical construction of the clauses. It is interesting to note that these acceptable and unacceptable halves are not inherently dependant on each other and should perhaps be disjoined and allowed to attempt passage based on their own merits.

In this delegate's humble opinion, the proposal should be redrafted and split into two separate proposals. If the questionable content is truly valid, then it should have no problem passing without the aid of the favorable portions of this proposal. And The Kingdom of Anago does support the initial clauses of this proposal and would hate to see such worthy ideals dragged down into rejection from the weight of Clauses 6 and 7.

Lord Regent Theobald Grimwold III
Voice of the High King of Anago
Defender of The Protectors of the Land

You want to block Resolutions that aim to disarm. Which is to say goodbye to any attempts by the UN to do away with any lovely new things sadistic folks think up. If someone invents a bean-sized bomb capable of putting a hole in the earth the size of the moon and deems it necessary for their country's safety, well, we're just gonna have to bend down and take it. If you don't find that unacceptable, then may whatever god you choose have mercy on your soul.The UN cannot ban a hypothetical. But if you want to talk actual weapons, I would note that the most destructive ones known to the modern world have already been protected from being banned.

Answer to your own question there. Clause 7 blocks weapons bans. Which is to say, no more disarmament Resolutions. Note, I'm not talking about the category.Really? This blocks weapons bans? Thank you for telling me, Ambassador; I did not know that!

Your responses amount to such egregious false alternatives such as "If we don't have uberweapons, our country will be doomed!" Sorry that you feel so insecure about your own borders, but I don't buy it. You want to get as much and as big of toys as you can, and you don't want the UN to slap your hand and say no. I'll be plenty happy to keep on saying so, page after page, because this Resolution deserves no less a fight than that.No, that is not our stated position on blocking weapons bans. Please be so kind as to respond to our actual arguments, not cheaply made strawmen.

Couldn't care less about points. Just trying to ensure that you paid extra close attention to it so you don't see two commissions again.You mustn't care much about staying relevant either, and that last remark proves it. Misrepresenting our views, passive-aggressive snipings, repeatedly demonizing those with which you disagree. Throw in some bullshit about America and freedom fighters and I could swear this was the first anti-terrorism debate -- which of course leads me to ask what meaningless drivel we could have included in this proposal in order to win your support?

Cmdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

which of course leads me to ask what meaningless drivel we could have included in this proposal in order to win your support?

Cmdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

Dolphins are cute, cuddly and beloved by children everywhere?...Soprry wrong debate. Personally,mate, I don't think you could add anything to get their support. However you still have mine.
excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

This is sugar-coated cyanide.

Clauses 1-5 are clearly intended to lull the so-called “fluffy bunny” factiion of these United Nations to sleep, so that they might be more easily blindsided by Clauses 6 and 7. Let us focus on these last two clauses, because it is here that the malicious nature of this resolution is revealed.

This is alleged to be a “Global Disarmament” measure - yet in Clause 6 it encourages nations to increase weapons spending by “develop(ing) ... chemical arms”, while Clause 7 gives them the green light to do so! At best, the sponsors of this legislation seem to be suggesting that nations who increase their chemical weapons stocks will naturally reduce spending on other weaponry by an even greater amount. Otherwise, how could this proposal possibly “slash worldwide military spending”?¹

But the greater crime being perpetrated here is the addition of a blocker to future disarmament measures in a bill that ostensibly seeks to further “Global Disarmament”! Giving nations carte blanche to “develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense” effectively bars any and all future efforts to ban, reduce, or even cap the production of any weapon whatsoever.²

The reason this proposal will bar all future “Global Disarmament” legislation is simple: UN Resolutions may not contradict other resolutions in force at the time of their submission. Nations who submit such proposals will see them deleted and see themselves warned or even banished from these halls for the act of contradicting this act, should it become law.

It is literally the disarmament proposal to end all disarmament proposals - an arms merchant's wet dream if there ever was one.

Why would any future disarmament measure be blocked by this legislation? Simply because any single Member could exercise a veto over any such proposal by proclaiming that “we need those weapons to defend ourselves”, and the measure would be deleted. Nor does the qualification that the arms be used solely “for ... national defense”, provide a workaround: there is no basis in this resolution for anyone gainsaying the maverick leader who declares, “Oh, well, I use that for defense - whatever anybody else does”; no one can challenge his assertion, or make the maverick in question explain himself. “Our defense plans are classified - sorry,” is all he need say and the matter is closed.

But surely, you say, even if we can't ban weapons, we can cap inventories, reduce their prevalence, limit their sale, or at worst restrict their use? Wrong on all counts: there are no limits on production, deployment, or utilization; in these areas, as all others, any single nation can veto prevent such proposals from ever even reach quorum, and can do so without limitation or exception.

But worst of all is the precedent this sets: if “Global Disarmament” measures can be barred without restriction simply because somebody doesn't like them, then any and all other measures can be foreclosed as well, until we find ourselves unable to take up any business at all - except, of course, for the repeal of past work with an eye towards erasing ourselves from existence. Think this is a slippery slope argument? We advise you to look at how UNR #109 has resulted in the emergence of a whole slew of blockers, and not just in its original category.

Make no mistake about it: this is an attack, not just on the dream of international arms control, but upon the entire United Nations. Its purpose is nothing less than the emasculation and destruction of this great institution; the ultimate triumph of the self-proclaimed enemies of the U.N.
_________________________________________________

¹We understand that, from a statwanking perspective, this proposal will in fact do what its author says it will. We believe that the mods made an error of staggering proportions in not striking this proposal for category violations, but what's done is done. The mods' mistake doesn't alter the fact that the logical effect of such a proposal would be to increase rather than decrease spending.

There are numerous Real Life™ examples of nations investing in WMD with the mistaken belief that such expenditures would enable a corresponding or even greater cut in conventional arms, the most recent and spectacular being the decision by the United States to invest heavily in nuclear weapons back in the 1950's. That the author of this proposal and his supporters have adopted this same specious thinking doesn't make it valid; that the mods bless doesn't make it valid, either.

You can put a saddle on a pig and call it a horse; that doesn't make it any less a pig.

²Once more, we acknowledge the ruling (by the mods) that this is not a rules violation; but here, too, we believe that this ruling was made in error. A year ago, UNR #110, “United Nations Security Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=109)”, passed legal muster only because its most important operative clause...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....implicitly left the authority to decide which weapon systems were “necessary (for defense)” to this body itself. This resolution has no such escape clause. and so its passage effectively eliminates the “Global Disarmament” category until it is repealed.

Really? This blocks weapons bans? Thank you for telling me, Ambassador; I did not know that!


Just for quick reference:

7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.

I would like to point out, under this wording, that it seems that it does infact block the UN from legislating further bans. A simple change of wording, or simply removing the word "standing" before legislation would allow further legislation to be made, if necessary.

As of right now, however, I will need time to review the proposal further before I can give support.

Ambassador Mikhail Cordon
The Holy Republic of Seangoli

The UN cannot ban a hypothetical. But if you want to talk actual weapons, I would note that the most destructive ones known to the modern world have already been protected from being banned.
It doesn't have to ban hypotheticals. Because eventually, they might not be hypotheticals. Are you going to tell me that we've reached the pinnacle of weapons development and that there will never be anything else with either a greater destructive force, or a different kind of destructive force that might be worthwhile to prevent the proliferation of? I for one would rather like it if the UN weren't stripped of its ability to interfere with that.

Really? This blocks weapons bans? Thank you for telling me, Ambassador; I did not know that!
Apparently not, because I can't see any reason why you would have asked me how I got the notion that it does.

No, that is not our stated position on blocking weapons bans. Please be so kind as to respond to our actual arguments, not cheaply made strawmen.
Well of course it's not your stated position, I was mocking your stated position which amounts to your fear of invasion or retaliation. You "need deterrence" and what not. Ausserland pretty capably expounded on the necessity (or lack of) for your deterrence.

You mustn't care much about staying relevant either, and that last remark proves it. Misrepresenting our views, passive-aggressive snipingsReally? This blocks weapons bans? Thank you for telling me, Ambassador; I did not know that!, repeatedly demonizing those with which you disagree.
Sorry, but the very fact that you're trying to BLOCK WEAPONS BANS doesn't leave much to the image of an angel, now does it?

Throw in some bullshit about America and freedom fighters and I could swear this was the first anti-terrorism debateYou mustn't care much about staying relevant either, -- which of course leads me to ask what meaningless drivel we could have included in this proposal in order to win your support?

The only way you could get our support is if Clauses 6 and 7 were struck, but since it's going to vote with them in, you won't be getting it.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Throw in some bullshit about America and freedom fighters and I could swear this was the first anti-terrorism debate -- which of course leads me to ask what meaningless drivel we could have included in this proposal in order to win your support?


"URGES nations to address the root causes of international conflict, through greater education and understanding of one another"

There ya go.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

"URGES nations to address the root causes of international conflict, through greater education and understanding of one another"

Please, there's a difference between fluffy crap like that and the things I suggest. Even I would gripe about a clause with that ending.

Please, there's a difference between fluffy crap like that and the things I suggest. Even I would gripe about a clause with that ending.

Hey, that tactic appears to have worked in getting the UNCTI passed. ;)

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Hey, that tactic appears to have worked in getting the UNCTI passed. ;)

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

to paraphrase Kurt Angle.."Its true, Its true!"
(OOC:sorry Cluich, but I couldn't resist another pro wrestling reference.http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/smileys/fuzzy.gif)

Hey, that tactic appears to have worked in getting the UNCTI passed.

I was only talking about the ending. That sounds like a bad hippie info-mercial. The last clause of UNCTI was professional, and manly.

(OOC:sorry Cluich, but I couldn't resist another pro wrestling reference.http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/smileys/fuzzy.gif)

OOC: You really must stop using that smiley... :p

The last clause of UNCTI was professional, and manly.

IC:

Would you have expected anything less of me?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: You really must stop using that smiley... :p



IC:

Would you have expected anything less of me?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Well... I've seen manly.


The Stout

Well... I've seen manly.


The Stout

Ah, but what you may not have seen is that you received mention in the lastest issue of The Polar Picayune (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11896250&postcount=21)...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: ;)

Ah, but what you may not have seen is that you received mention in the lastest issue of The Polar Picayune (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11896250&postcount=21)...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: ;)

-reads the paper-

WHAT?! I never said that! That's ridiculous! When the hell has anyone ever heard me say "butted heads!?"

BAH.

-reads the paper-

WHAT?! I never said that! That's ridiculous! When the hell has anyone ever heard me say "butted heads!?"

BAH.

It must be true. It was in the newspaper.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Heck, Tommo ought to see the text of the AAA Treaty. He'd piss his pants over that one.

Talk about "manly."

Heck, Tommo ought to see the text of the AAA Treaty. He'd piss his pants over that one.

Talk about "manly."

Very true. There is that second clause of the AAA Treaty (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=158)...

Heck, Tommo ought to see the text of the AAA Treaty. He'd piss his pants over that one.

Talk about "manly."

Very true. There is that second clause of the AAA Treaty (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=158)...
Hmmmm....one of my puppets is a signatory of that treaty.

*considers the implications*

*decides that it wouldn't be prudent to nuke Norderia at this time*

Very true. There is that second clause of the AAA Treaty (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=158)...

OOC: BAH HA! And it's not like that's even been edited recently enough to just be a joke from this thread... HA!

Well... I've seen manly.


The Stout

Manly? I'll show you manly!!!
*rips off shirt like Hulk Hogan and starts flexing*
"Take a good look at these 26" pythons Brotha!"
:D

I apologize for waiting this long to raise a point of order. I believe this resolution to be illegal.
7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.This is a “house of cards” violation: it attempts to define the resolution's working scope by reference to one or more other resolutions.

To see this, consider the relationship between this resolution and UNR #113 (“UN Biological Weapons Ban (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=112)”). As things stand today, the foregoing clause says that national leaders may “ develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons (they) deem necessary for their national defense”. Thanks to the prior passage of UNR #113, this reserved right does not extend to “contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes”, where these organisms have been weaponized.

But what will happen if UNR #113 is repealed?

The prevailing opinion here is that the UAA will “magically” expand to encompass so-called “bioweapons” as well. But this would be tantamount to making any repeal of UNR #113 equivalent to a repeal with an amendment to the UAA (extending its authority) as a rider.

Repeals may not include new legislation, and no legislation may ever be amended. Were the UAA to pass, we would be forced to declare any attempt at the repeal of UNR #113 illegal.

Unfortunately, under the current rules, no resolution can be made invulnerable to repeal. Since the UAA would render any repeal of UNR #113 illegal, it must itself be illegal.

Another way of looking at the problem is this: the UAA is effectively self-amending; it is designed to expand its own scope of influence as each new arms control measure gets repealed. Since amendments are illegal, there can be no doubt that a measure that dynamically amends itself with changing circumstances can not be allowed.

The heart of the problem lies in the reference to “standing legislation issued by this body”. Adding this phrase to any resolution renders that resolution illegal. Yes, I understand the goal: it's what lawyers call “severability”: if a contract clause is illegal, severability clauses result in the abandonment of that clause for the sake of the preservation of what's left of the contract.

But there is no basis for assuming that this practice is applicable here within the NationStates United Nations: in fact, because it is our practice to delete the whole resolution for any illegality, however trivial, it's clear that severability isn't something we can tolerate in any resolution. It's illegal, and must be avoided.

If the author of the UAA wants this to be legal, he must rewrite with an explicit exception to §7 for bioweapons. The unworkable alternative would be for the mods to forever remember that bioweapons, as defined in UNR #113, were illegal at the time the UAA was passed and therefore remain outside its legal scope even if UNR #113 is repealed.

In addition, there is a contradiction between this amendment and UNR #110 (“United Nations Security Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=109)”):
7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.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.The UAA attempts to amend the standard established by UNR #110 by which this body judges a weapon beyond its oversight.

Leaving aside the trivial difference between what is “necessary for ... national defense” (the UAA) and what is “necessary to defend (a) nation from attack” (UNR #110), the UAA deliberately places the decision regarding which weapons are needed for national defense in the hands of individual national leaders, rather than in the collective hands of this assembly. The effect is to replace the current “majority rule” standard (in determining which arms a nation may employ in its own defense free of UN oversight) with a “unilateral veto” standard – a clear contradiction, aimed at replacing (or amending, to put a sharper point on it) the rule established by UNR #110.

If the author of this resolution doesn't like the standard established by UNR #110, his only option is to follow the rules and seek the repeal on UNR #110 so that his UAA (less the illegal severability clause, mentioned above) can take its place.

That, or he can drop §7 altogether.

Either way, though, this resolution must be stricken from queue for a rewrite and/or pending the repeal of UNR #110.

We understand the hardship that this will impose on the supporters of this resolution, but there simply is no choice.

Bullshit. The mods have already ruled twice that this is legal. Don't try spreading your santorum here just because you're pissed that your own proposal is on the brink of deletion.

[EDIT: I'll be starting a new thread in a few days for the at-vote debate; if the mods wouldn't mind locking this one first.]

Either way, though, this resolution must be stricken from queue for a rewrite and/or pending the repeal of UNR #110.

We understand the hardship that this will impose on the supporters of this resolution, but there simply is no choice.
Could you possibly be any more pompous or demanding? Last I checked, we were the ones who got to make those sorts of calls.


The mods have already ruled twice that this is legal. Correct.Don't try spreading your santorum here
Hee. Hadn't heard that usage before. How fitting.

I don't know why, but there is something minorly disturbing at the thought of Fris laughing. Probably just the context it occurred in. Maybe just cuz I don't remember it happening before......sorry. Back on topic, now.

<snipped for brevity>

Another way of looking at the problem is this: the UAA is effectively self-amending; it is designed to expand its own scope of influence as each new arms control measure gets repealed. Since amendments are illegal, there can be no doubt that a measure that dynamically amends itself with changing circumstances can not be allowed.

I am truly impressed that you came up with this argument. No joke, no sarcasm.

Unfortunately, it's rather flawed. The UAA is not self-amending. What happens when a resolution like the UAA is put in place and then past legislation is repealed, is that the body of UN law undergoes a change when the past legislation is repealed. The UAA is not amended. Just the set of resolutions that constitute "past legislation", which changes after every repeal that goes through. Because that's just what happens when something is repealed.

The meaning of a term changing in fact or in common usage hardly constitutes an amendment to a resolution. The amendment rule would only be violated when we try to change the definition of a term by re-defining it in another resolution, not in fact or common usage.

Now on to your assertions about my resolution.

In addition, there is a contradiction between this amendment and UNR #110 (“United Nations Security Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=109)”):The UAA attempts to amend the standard established by UNR #110 by which this body judges a weapon beyond its oversight.

Leaving aside the trivial difference between what is “necessary for ... national defense” (the UAA) and what is “necessary to defend (a) nation from attack” (UNR #110), the UAA deliberately places the decision regarding which weapons are needed for national defense in the hands of individual national leaders, rather than in the collective hands of this assembly. The effect is to replace the current “majority rule” standard (in determining which arms a nation may employ in its own defense free of UN oversight) with a “unilateral veto” standard – a clear contradiction, aimed at replacing (or amending, to put a sharper point on it) the rule established by UNR #110.

If you think that the UNSA left the decision up to the "collective hands of this assembly" you need to seriously re-think your interpretation of it.

It's pointless to argue the second issue, so I won't; the UAA has been ruled legal, and will come to a vote, bad law or not, and I'll fight it further then.

But the use of severability clauses bugs the H_ll out of me.Just the set of resolutions that constitute "past legislation", which changes after every repeal that goes through. Because that's just what happens when something is repealed.Here's the problem I see with that approach: let's say that the UAA becomes law. At the time it passed, it didn't apply to bioweapons. If the meaning of the UAA isn't changed by the repeal of UNR #113, why is it that I can't bring a new bioweapons ban to the floor to replace the one that just got repealed? The UAA didn't apply to bioweapons then, so it shouldn't apply now, or ever, for that matter. The “hole” produced by the “prior legislation exception” should remain a hole forever, or at least for the life of the resolution.

If you're not going to hold that rule, then you need to accept the legality of constructions like “except as provided by other legislation promulgated by this body” or “the term '<$term>' means <$definition> unless otherwise defined by this body”.

And then you're into amendments.

That's not the only problem I have with this practice, but it's the first that comes to mind.

It's pointless to argue the second issue, so I won't; the UAA has been ruled legal, and will come to a vote, bad law or not, and I'll fight it further then.

But the use of severability clauses bugs the H_ll out of me.Here's the problem I see with that approach: let's say that the UAA becomes law. At the time it passed, it didn't apply to bioweapons. If the meaning of the UAA isn't changed by the repeal of UNR #113, why is it that I can't bring a new bioweapons ban to the floor to replace the one that just got repealed? The UAA didn't apply to bioweapons then, so it shouldn't apply now, or ever, for that matter. The “hole” produced by the “prior legislation exception” should remain a hole forever, or at least for the life of the resolution.

If you're not going to hold that rule, then you need to accept the legality of constructions like “except as provided by other legislation promulgated by this body” or “the term '<$term>' means <$definition> unless otherwise defined by this body”.

And then you're into amendments.

That's not the only problem I have with this practice, but it's the first that comes to mind.

Noted, but I'm incredibly disinclined to accept your slippery slope argument, for a variety of reasons.

Closed so the author can start an official discussion topic.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia