NationStates Jolt Archive

This does need some more work. Any and all constructive criticism welcome.

The United Nations;

NOTING that UNR #113 includes such things as the common cold and flu, but does not include non-contagious infectious agents such as anthrax, which would allow for nations to exploit this oversight and develop biological weapons using such non-contagious infectious agents;

Also NOTING that though UNR #113 hints at it, it makes no suggestions for defense against "bio weapons";

AWARE that the limitation of 250mg is arbitrary and unrealistic as different agents will have different critical masses for bio hazard lethality;

APPALLED that the safeguards suggested by UNR # 113 could be crippling to medical research, especially in developing nations or in nations where there is a threat of bio weapon attack and they lack the technology or funding for multi-tier quarantining;

DISTURBED that Article 5 UNR # 113 would proscribe military partnerships with nations that possess too much of a "bioweapon agent" without regard to the use or purpose to which said agent is employed by that agent;

HEREBY repeals UN Resolution #113 "UN Biological Weapons Ban".

I agree with you on two things, there are reasons for this to be repealed and that 250 mg should be reworded to a "less than dangerous amount".


Contagious can also mean spread from an object to a person, which can include anthrax on objects such as an envelope.

There is no problem with the lack of suggesting ways to stop biological warfare, as it is merely a ban. Although, you could reword your statement to say that since the UN is removing the defense of "MAD" (Mutually Assured Destruction, meaning you have Bio Weps and so does your enemy, you both want to live so you both dont use them) they should supply you with an equally effective defense if it wants to remove that.

I don't really understand how it affects medical research? Im guessing you mean they can't research cold medicine because they need to produce colds to test it? Because the wording of the current Resolution does not meantion anything being used for purely medical purposes.

I also do not see where they talk about military partnerships with those with bio weapons?

You have some good ideas for how to repeal this act, but you have too many vagueties and are using some points that could be replaced by better ones.

We fully support the repeal of that terrible law UNR 113!

That poorly written piece of garbage has prevented many countries from developing vaccines among other things.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Just some grammar and punctuation changes, along with a couple of very minor changes to the wording itself.

The United Nations;

NOTING that UNR #113 includes such things as the common cold and flu, but does not include non-contagious infectious agents such as anthrax, which enables nations to exploit this oversight and develop biological weapons using such non-contagious infectious agents;

Also NOTING that, although UNR #113 hints at it, it makes no suggestions for defense against "bio weapons";

AWARE that the limitation of 250 mg is arbitrary and unrealistic, as different agents will have different critical masses for biohazard lethality;

APPALLED that the safeguards suggested by UNR # 113 could be crippling to medical research, especially in developing nations or in nations in which there is a threat of bio-weapon attack and which lack the technology or funding for multi-tier quarantining;

DISTURBED that Article 5 of UNR # 113 would proscribe military partnerships with nations that possess too much of a "bioweapon agent" without regard to the use or purpose to which said agent is employed by those nations;

HEREBY repeals UN Resolution #113 "UN Biological Weapons Ban".

Nice work, Karmi. Now get this bad boy to quorum! http://209.85.62.26/5999/196/emo/ausser.gif

Nice work, Karmi. Now get this bad boy to quorum! http://209.85.62.26/5999/196/emo/ausser.gif

Yes sir!

I'll submit it later on. Having just dealt with a repeal, I think I'll hold off.

just for reference....

UN Biological Weapons Ban

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category : Global Disarmament
Strength : Strong
Proposed by : Reformentia

Description : NOTING bioweapons are an unpredictable and dangerous weapon to ALL parties in a conflict, combatant and non-combatant alike.

DECLARING “bioweapons” are contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection. Alternately, "vaccines" are neutralized forms of bioweapons individually administered to a voluntary subject to stimulate immune response to those bioweapons, and which pose a negligible (less than 0.5%) chance of causing injury beyond the required immune response or death.

DECLARING a "virus" to be a microscopic infective agent with DNA or RNA guiding its actions.

CONVINCED the possession or use of such bioweapons by any UN or NON UN member nation presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of all nations and are unnecessary to national defense.

TAKING NOTE of the need for nations to develop effective defenses against such bioweapons.

HEREBY RESOLVES:

1. The possession, production, trafficking or use (either directly or through proxy) of bioweapons as defined by this resolution is forbidden to all UN member nations.

2. Exception is made to Article 1 for trace amounts of no more than 250mg of any bioweapons required for the purpose of counter-agent research. Such trace amounts it is the responsibility of any nation researching them to keep secured against risk of any infection to anyone. They are to be so secured within a multi-tier (minimum of 2 tier) quarantined building in that nation, and kept under the highest of that nation’s military security.

3. In any circumstances not covered by Article 2: Any bioweapon proscribed as described in this resolution which at any time is in the possession of a member nation or known to be in the possession of its citizenry must be immediately and completely destroyed through a method which incorporates all possible safeguards against any release of the agent.

4. Though being infected is not illegal, if a proscribed agent is present in an infected individual they must undergo immediate isolation and treatment.

5. UN member nations are proscribed from military partnerships of any kind with any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution.

STRONGLY URGES:

6. UN member nations to employ trade sanctions or incentives as they see fit to any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution, in any circumstances where the application of such sanctions or incentives would represent an effective means to having that nation abandon such bioweapons.

7. UN member nations issue a formal statement of intent that in the event that a nation/nations employs bioweapons against a UN member nation, forces will be committed to the defense of that member nation, and/or reprisals upon the offending nation/nations. The terms and conditions of such a statement to be left to the discretion of each individual member nation.

Votes For : 8,557

Votes Against : 6,382

Implemented : Sat Jul 23 2005

just for reference....

Yeah, thanks, Hirota. I was gonna do that myself, got distracted (OOH! Shiny object!) and then forgot. It's always a good idea to have the original resolution posting in a repeal thread. Karmi, perhaps you should add it to your OP.

I'll do that, Cluich. I think I'll submit after the update or first thing tomorrow morning. Any help with TGing would be greatly appreciated.

Oh and thanks Hirota for posting the original resolution. :)

Yeah, thanks, Hirota. I was gonna do that myself, got distracted (OOH! Shiny object!) and then forgot. It's always a good idea to have the original resolution posting in a repeal thread. Karmi, perhaps you should add it to your OP. I figured I was overdue on a good idea. ;)

Anyhow, I'm not convinced about the whole argument that this somehow causes serious problems with medical research. I can see it causing some issues, but nothing crippling.

I'll probably vote for this repeal, possibly abstain. Unlikely to vote against. It's well written :)

Okay. I this is the draft that Cluich tinkered with (thank you). I've made a few changes myself. I will highlight both my changes and Cluich's so the difference from the first draft can be seen.

The United Nations;

NOTING that UNR #113 includes such things as the common cold and flu, but does not include non-contagious infectious agents such as anthrax, which enables nations to exploit this oversight and develop biological weapons using such non-contagious infectious agents;

Also NOTING that, although UNR #113 hints at it, it makes no suggestions for defense against "bio weapons";

AWARE that the limitation of 250 mg is arbitrary and unrealistic, as different agents will have different critical masses for biohazard lethality;

APPALLED that the safeguards suggested by UNR # 113 could unnecessarily hinder medical research, especially in developing nations or in nations in which there is a threat of bio-weapon attack and which lack the technology or funding for multi-tier quarantining;

DISTURBED that Article 5 of UNR # 113 would proscribe military partnerships with nations that possess too much of a "bioweapon agent" without regard to the use or purpose to which said agent is employed by those nations;

HEREBY repeals UN Resolution #113 "UN Biological Weapons Ban".

Alright, lets get this bad boy passed. I have a few vials of Super Flu just waiting to become um vaccine..thats it vaccine.

Anyway great work guys!

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

hey, just wondering if you could answer my previous question. Where in the Resolution does it ban anything use for Medical purposes? I do not see one part, it uses the word Weapons. Its hard to get Weapons and Medicine confused *wording that is*.

It helps if you read the Resolution and use its definitions: It defines 'bioweapons' as "contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection." It then bans 'bioweapons'.

Nowhere in the definition of 'bioweapon' does it deal with actual weapons. According to this Resolution, if I have a cold, and I cough on you, I'm deploying a biological weapon against you. Furthermore, it restricts holdings of all agents that fall into its broad net. By restricting people to no more than 250mg of an agent (whatever the hell that means), it limits medical research. This Resolution draws no distinctions between a biomed company working on a cure for the flu and a bioweapons company working on Captain Tripps.

Nowhere in the definition of 'bioweapon' does it deal with actual weapons. According to this Resolution, if I have a cold, and I cough on you, I'm deploying a biological weapon against you.

One problem is that bioweapons don't have to be weapons in the classical sense. Whether intentional or not, Europeans had employed germ warfare for centuries to a number of continents. Colonists of the Americas actually gave their native enemies blankets from disease victims in the hope that the disease would spread and eliminate the native enemy.

You know Retired WerePenguins, thats an other way to get around this utterly useless proposal. We used that same tactic when we liberated a neighboring country. We promised to give them aid, and well we did.

Next thing you know they had a nasty bout of Black Death and our army had to take over their country and rescue them so this resolution is less then useless. As for the 250mg rule, I probably have that much e. coli in my gut. All Terrian animals with an alimentary chanal have that bacteria in their guts. So I suppose that every single person, dog, cat, cow, etc in my country is a walking violation of this resolution then.

Oh and Comrade Serpov's wife got a staff infection from changing diapers when his son Yakov was little...I suppose he was deploying a "biological weapon" against her then too.

Lets hurry up and repeal this trash anyway.

V. Khernynko.
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

I'd like to note that the Cluichstani government has authorised the drafting of a replacement. I have charged my assistant, Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel, with said drafting.

http://www.montypython.art.pl/obrazki/lcmp19-15.jpg

Thanks, Tarquin!

Mr. Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel believes he can have a viable replacement ready within a few days.

For the record, Cluichstan is actually against the use of contagions as weapons. Shocker, I know. "Cluichstan is against the use of a certain type of weapon?!?"

But yes, we are, for the reason that their effects cannot be reliably controlled. It's one thing if a bomb goes astray, but once a contagion is released, it goes on its merry way virtually unchecked. We'd like to see their use banned, but the current resolution, as has been noted, is crap and should be repealed.


Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

P.S. The draft will likely undergo a vetting process with the UN DEFCON (http://z15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?) before appearing here.

Unless that replacement says:

The Nations of the UN may use whatever weapons that they deem necessary excepting those banned by previous UN legislation still in force.

or something to that effect Ellelt will vote against it.

Nekstor "Get your filthy pacifist hands off my military" Brunzov
Elleltian Minister of Defense

I'd like to remind my Elleltian friend that contagions don't pay any attention whatsoever to national boundaries.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

See now Ellelt, you saying something like that just makes me inclined to vote directly opposite to you, if only to nullify your vote. It’s not helpful, ir’s not constructive, and it’s not clever.

I'd prefer to be involved in the drafting process and contributing to the process before I stamp my foot like a petulant child. So should you.

See now Ellelt, you saying something like that just makes me inclined to vote directly opposite to you, if only to nullify your vote. It’s not helpful, ir’s not constructive, and it’s not clever.

I'd prefer to be involved in the drafting process and contributing to the process before I stamp my foot like a petulant child. So should you.

Ease up on our Elletian friend. He's a relative newcomer to these hallowed halls.

You and I have worked together on legislation in the past (remeber that first crack at the Anti-Terrorism Act?), and I -- or rather, my assistant, Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel -- would welcome your input on a replacement.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

True contagion do not respect national boundaries, neither do migratory birds. No Offense but moot point. Ellelt's Medical system can handle whatever weapon could possibly used against us except maybe a super plague that we haven't designed.

Further just because a nation develops biological weapons doesn't mean that they will use them, except as a deterrent. Like nuclear weapons, biological weapons of the classical sense (meaning a weapon delivered [In our case our Lenin IV rocket was specifically designed for this] virus/bacteria that is highly infectious and possibly contagious) are a weapon of mass destruction (WMD). As such use by a nation of these weapons on an other nation would result in retaliation in kind thus creating a Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) scenario.

As far as drafting a replacement, I do not feel that a replacement is necessary. Not everything that is repealed needs to be replaced. This is one of those instances.

Nekstor "Keep your filthy pacifist hands off My Military" Brunzov
Elleltian Minister of Defense.

I'm for teh repeal of this. Besides i'm sure have have much more destruive items then biochemical weapons. Like my Black Materia for one and the Cluichstan Death Star as another.

It helps if you read the Resolution and use its definitions: It defines 'bioweapons' as "contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection." It then bans 'bioweapons'.

Nowhere in the definition of 'bioweapon' does it deal with actual weapons. According to this Resolution, if I have a cold, and I cough on you, I'm deploying a biological weapon against you. Furthermore, it restricts holdings of all agents that fall into its broad net. By restricting people to no more than 250mg of an agent (whatever the hell that means), it limits medical research. This Resolution draws no distinctions between a biomed company working on a cure for the flu and a bioweapons company working on Captain Tripps.Those who recall the debate over United Nations Resolution 113 will remember that we were among those nations leading the debate against that resolution. We left the U.N. over the passage of this resolution just before it passed because, as Dr. Leary has pointed out, the resolution essentially bans contagious diseases.

The resolution has all kinds of horrible consequences. People who are contagious must be quarantined; under certain circumstances, they may even be consider bioterrorists. If the disease is incurable - like herpes - then their quarantine becomes a life sentence without parole. This monstrous violation of human rights alone forced our withdrawal from the U.N.

Tissue biopsies and blood, urine, or feces samples are considered bioweapons under Resolution 113. The total amount of such samples nationwide must amount to no more than 250g. This makes the practical use of medical testing impossible, to the detriment of the health of the public.

Ordinary hospital facilities and laboratories must be kept under security akin to that found at weapons laboratories. The imposition of military security and clearance requirements makes the maintenance of hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, labs, medical schools, and even ordinary doctors' and dentists' offices practically impossible.

The United States of Allemande trains hundreds of thousands of medical students every year; medical professionals from across the Pacific Basin conduct their residences in Allemande. We felt that allowing our medical and pharmaceutical industries to be destroyed, along with the academic resources we provide the world, would have been criminal. We quit the U.N., and have never looked back.

If we were selfish, we would pray for the United Nations to maintain Resolution 113 on the books; it would allow us to remain one of the world's leaders in the field of medicine. But our devotion to making the world a better place demands that we urge you to repeal U.N. Resolution 113.

We are sure that you will do the right thing, and look forward to helping the members of the United Nations restore the shattered health care industries once this albatross no longer hangs around their necks.

- Edith Mayenne
- Secretary of State

True contagion do not respect national boundaries, neither do migratory birds. No Offense but moot point. Ellelt's Medical system can handle whatever weapon could possibly used against us except maybe a super plague that we haven't designed.

Not a moot point at all, my friend. Migratory birds generally don't kill a lot of people.

Further just because a nation develops biological weapons doesn't mean that they will use them, except as a deterrent. Like nuclear weapons, biological weapons of the classical sense (meaning a weapon delivered [In our case our Lenin IV rocket was specifically designed for this] virus/bacteria that is highly infectious and possibly contagious) are a weapon of mass destruction (WMD). As such use by a nation of these weapons on an other nation would result in retaliation in kind thus creating a Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) scenario.

But since a contagion's spread cannot be reliably controlled, there's no assurance that, although Country A and Country B may be in a MAD scenario, their neighbours will remain safe. Nay, in fact, the use of biological contagions could put the entire world at risk.

As far as drafting a replacement, I do not feel that a replacement is necessary. Not everything that is repealed needs to be replaced. This is one of those instances.

We certainly agree on the first point. No, not every repealed resolution requires a replacement. In fact, Cluichstan has been against replacing the majority of the resolutions that have been repealed since it joined the UN. However, this, we believe, is an exception.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Not a moot point at all, my friend. Migratory birds generally don't kill a lot of people.

Unless, of course, they manage to jointly carry coconuts, and if those coconuts were infected with a contageous viral agent then and only then would this come up before the present resolution before repeal. Hopefully we can repeal this resolution before the next migratory journey.

Unless, of course, they manage to jointly carry coconuts, and if those coconuts were infected with a contageous viral agent then and only then would this come up before the present resolution before repeal. Hopefully we can repeal this resolution before the next migratory journey.

OOC: Bugger all! The dreaded Monty Python counter! :p

The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic joins the government of Cluichstan in wanting to see an effective replacement for the 'Biological Weapons Ban' passed as soon as possible after the original law is repealed.

Ellelt may vote in favor of a ban should her UNDEFCON Comrades can effectively convince her that that is a wise course of action. But that will be a hard sell.

As for the migratory birds carrying contagion infected coconuts...thats a good idea, I'll get my military people working on it.

VK.

The resolution in question is badly flawed. As the honorable representative of Allemande will recall, we, along with others, pointed that out in the original debate, to no avail.

The resolution is at once too broad and too narrow. It encompasses all contagious pathogens, even those with no reasonable military application. By including such organisms as those causing the common cold, it ridiculously hamstrings medical research. On the other hand, it fails to cover infectious but non-contagious pathogens like anthrax. The security requirements, given the breadth of the scope, are flatly absurd.

That being said, we would hesitate to support a repeal without a high probability of replacement. Doing so would just give mindless war-mongers unrestrained license to produce, stockpile, and use these horrendous weapons. They are in no way a necessary deterrent to any sort of aggression. They are simply toys for the unthinking psychopaths of the world to play with.

We will be more than happy to join with our colleagues who have expressed a desire to draft reasonable and effective legislation on this issue. Once that is done, and there are firm commitments of support from at least some of those who might be expected to oppose it, we will enthusiastically support this repeal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Due to the flaws in the original resolution already expressed, Altanar supports this repeal and offers its services to any members who wish to draft a less-flawed replacement to it as quickly as possible. We are firmly opposed to biological weapons, but feel that the existing resolution has loopholes which could be exploited.

As we are not currently a U.N. member, we are indifferent to the issue of replacement (unless the result is even worse than this, which is hard to imagine). That said, when in the U.N., we supported a ban on bioweapons. Thinking about the subject over a year later, we believe that the problem lay in attempting to define “bioweapons”, rather than cutting to the chase and simply saying that people couldn't use germs to harm their enemies.

With our neighbours in the People's Democratic Republic of Community Property attempting to introduce a bill to ban the military use of technology - a laudable effort but, if you ask us, something of a fool's errand (not to mention a legal minefield, given all the positive uses of nanotechnology in warfare, such as medicinal uses, chemical and biological decontamination, and the manufacture of useful materials such as body armour made from “buckyfibre”, etc.) the repeal of this resolution could open the door to a more general ban on microscopic weapons, thus killing two birds with one stone.

After all, if nanotechnology does have a dangerous application on the battlefield (which Dr. Leary quite reasonably doubts), it is in the creation of a logical successor to chemical and biological agents. Turning people into grey goo is science fiction; building a designer virus that poisons people unless they have a certain genetic marker is not - it is reasonable speculation.

With that in mind, we'd say something like this:FORBIDS the use of microscopic devices or organisms against enemy personnel, equipment, citizens, or assets, unless necessary for national defence, save as provided by prior resolutions.This rids you of the problem of: Having to define a “bioweapon”.


Having to worry about dosage sizes (absurd given the differences between various biological agents) or disease characteristics.


Having to dance around the need for societies to keep harmful biological cultures around for legitimate purposes, as well as to handle infected materials and samples, while still attempting to prevent people from establishing and maintaining weapons stocks.Finally, having been a United Nations member and quit, we have a word to say about the argument that people can always just leave the United Nations when they go to war and then turn around and re-enter when they're done. You can do that if your don't care about endorsements, but for many nations, the prospect of working to getting back to the level of influence you had before you quit can be a real deterrent to this sort of behaviour, especially when the United Nations already grants you the right to use weapons of any kind when your back is up against the wall.

On a personal note, I do indeed remember Mr. Olembe's role in the debate against this awful resolution and thank him and his government for the support they gave us at the time. It is not at all forgotten.

I apologize for the length of our statements today and yield back the floor for others' use.

- Edith Mayenne
- Secretary of State

The Hack would like to see nothing short of a full ban on biological weapons. Screw this "where necessary for national defence" tripe. Biological weapons are simply not required for national defence. They are not a defensive weapon, they are not a civilized weapon, and they are not a reliable weapon. While no sane government would ever use them, one simple needs to look at any discussion around a proposal at vote to see the disturbing lack of sanity in these halls.

In addition, we would like someone that knows their ass from a hole in the ground to write the replacement; preferably somebody that actually knows something about infectous agents. This is a chance for the UN to do something worthwhile, and we'd hate to see it get all mucked up.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

The “necessary for national defense” bit was a nod toward the UNSA, Mdm. Vermithrax. We wanted to keep the example short - to a single operative clause. Certainly there are competent proposal writers who can flesh this out more fully, and we absolutely agree that they should add the “magic words” needed to render a full ban legal.

As always, Madame, your comments are insightful.

- Edith Mayenne
- Secretary of State

OOC: Allemanders always use French forms of address, even though almost all of them speak English as a second language (and, unlike the French themselves, are perfectly comfortable using it in international proceedings). Consequently, calling your delegate “Ma'am” just sounds too weird. Hence, the use of the (very respectful) “Madame”.

Can I suggest that we take discussion of a replacement elsewhere? Let this repeal develop within it's own process, and perhaps refer to the discussion of a replacement elsewhere? Defcon perhaps?

In fact, I shall get it started myself.

Or I won't :D

The “necessary for national defense” bit was a nod toward the UNSA, Mdm. Vermithrax. We wanted to keep the example short - to a single operative clause. Certainly there are competent proposal writers who can flesh this out more fully, and we absolutely agree that they should add the “magic words” needed to render a full ban legal.A fair point, except that the magic words allow for a complete ban, as opposed to watered-down finger wagging.

Regardless, the draft replacement written by Kivisto in the thread linked above has my tentative support.


- Vermithrax Pejorative



Consequently, calling your delegate “Ma'am” just sounds too weird. Hence, the use of the (very respectful) “Madame”.Whichever works. The dossier titles listed are A) a near translation of her name, and B) more a joke than anything, based on the fact that people tend to be excessively respectful to whacking great dragons, heh.

Can I suggest that we take discussion of a replacement elsewhere? Let this repeal develop within it's own process, and perhaps refer to the discussion of a replacement elsewhere? Defcon perhaps?

In fact, I shall get it started myself.

http://z15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?showtopic=199

OOC Note from DEFCON Admin: Due to a split/merge of posts on the DEFCON site, the link provided by Hirota is no longer active. Those wishing to help with the drafting of a replacement should head here (http://z15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?showtopic=200).

UN DEFCON
http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/131749899.jpg
We care more about your nation's security than you do.

The Hack would like to see nothing short of a full ban on biological weapons. Screw this "where necessary for national defence" tripe. Biological weapons are simply not required for national defence. They are not a defensive weapon, they are not a civilized weapon, and they are not a reliable weapon. While no sane government would ever use them, one simple needs to look at any discussion around a proposal at vote to see the disturbing lack of sanity in these halls.

In addition, we would like someone that knows their ass from a hole in the ground to write the replacement; preferably somebody that actually knows something about infectous agents. This is a chance for the UN to do something worthwhile, and we'd hate to see it get all mucked up.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

While sanity is highly overrated, I'd agree that it would be nice if the UN could for once manage to write a weapons ban that actually makes sense.

Not that I'd support it, being the good anarchist that I am, but seeing something from the UN that properly addresses a military and scientific matter would be a pleasant change, given this body's repeated failures in those two areas.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Not that I'd support it, being the good anarchist that I amVermithrax smiles a little, "Oh, Mr. Dioce, certainly you acknowledge that there are many flavors of anarchy. Much as atheism can be turned into a religion by its adherents, anarchy can easily morph into dogma by those who are too attached the the idea of anarchy, as opposed to the underlying principles.

"Opposing all laws regardless of how helpful they might be walks a dangerous path." The dragon pauses, her maw twisting into something quite similar to a wry grin, "It can be forgiven, though. You're such a young man."

It seems a pretty peculiar interpretation of anarchy that grants nation states the right to have biological weapons.

~whoever