NationStates Jolt Archive

The World Assembly,

DENOUNCING nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry as maliciously destructive and harmful to the benefit of mankind;

OBSERVING the environmental impacts of mining uranium and the testing of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as intolerable and unsustainable;

and CONCLUDING the creation and proliferation of nuclear bombs and other weapons of mass destruction to pre-empt nuclear war, which is against the interest of humanity;

1. Prohibits the mining of uranium and all other minerals for the purpose of creating thermonuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

2. Hereby prohibits without exception the creation of any nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry or any weapons of mass destruction by any nation.

3. Prohibits the testing of all nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in any environment.

4. Declares any current existing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or any weapons of mass destruction owned by any nation to hereby fall under the jurisdiction of this resolution henceforth be declared illegal, and ordered to be destroyed.

Establishes the “World Assembly Nuclear Investigation Committee (heneceforth known as WANIC),” charged with the responsibility of monitoring the mining of uranium and all other minerals by countries suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction, and the subsequent prosecution of any nation found to be developing said weapons.

Why would you want a world where only non-member nations have nuclear weapons?

Weapons of mass destruction are the reason there have been no major wars due to MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). People do not use nuclear weapons due to fear of them likewise being used on them. Now,

The confederacy of Greenstripes WOULD support a limit on nuclear weapons, perhaps 1,000 to a nation, but an outright ban is simply foolish

We agree with the basic sense of this proposal, but the key issue is surely one of definitions. You have not defined a chemical weapon or a biological weapon, thus rendering it almost completely ineffective. You will need to write some definitions before submission. It might also be better to treat each WMD type in a separate proposal.

Also, you cannot build a biological weapon from mined uranium...

-- Samantha Benson

Also, you cannot build a biological weapon from mined uranium...

-- Samantha Benson

Actually, if you were to take the uranium and use it to power a nuclear power plant, which in turn powered the facility that made the biological weapons, you could be considered to be making bio-weapons out of uranium, but that's a bit of a stretch.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The World Assembly,

DEFINING a nuclear weapon as any explosive weapon that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions of fission or a combination of fission and fusion to kill, injure, incapacitate or seriously impede on one or more individuals;

DEFINING a chemical weapon as any weapon that uses the toxic properties of chemical substances to kill, injure, incapacitate or seriously impede on one or more individuals;

DEFINING a biological weapon as any weapon that uses any pathogen to kill, injure, incapacitate or seriously impede on one or more individuals;

DENOUNCING nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry and the doctrine of “MAD (Mutally assured destruction),” as maliciously destructive and harmful to the benefit of mankind;

OBSERVING the environmental impacts of mining uranium, the use of pathogens in any environment, the stockpiling of toxic chemical warfare agents and the testing of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as intolerable and unsustainable;

CONCLUDING the creation and proliferation of nuclear bombs, biological or chemical weapons and any other weapons of mass destruction to pre-empt war with these weapons on a massive scale, which is against the interest of humanity;

1. Prohibits the mining of uranium and all other minerals, the research of nuclear, biological or chemical technology and the stockpiling of toxic agents for the purpose of creating thermonuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

2. Hereby prohibits without exception the creation of any nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry or any weapons of mass destruction by any nation.

3. Prohibits the testing of all nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in any environment.

4. Declares any current existing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or any weapons of mass destruction owned by any nation to hereby fall under the jurisdiction of this resolution henceforth be declared illegal, and ordered to be destroyed.

5. Establishes the “World Assembly Weaponry Investigation Committee (henceforth known as WAWIC),” charged with the responsibility of monitoring the mining of uranium and all other minerals, the research of nuclear, chemical and biological technology and the stockpiling of toxic agents by any country suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction, and the subsequent prosecution of any nation found to be developing said weapons.

While my government position is against biological weapons we fully support the development of nuclear and chemical weapons. The idea of banning uranium is absurd, many nations economies are dependent on the mining of uranium, plus it is used to power nuclear plants which comparatively is a much more enviromentally friendly way of power generation than trademark oil and coal generators.

The Confederacy of Greenstripes has in fact recently bulldozed its rainforest in order to mine uranium so as to bolster the economy and develop nuclear weapons for its own protections. We are against this issue.

The representative from The Militarized Zone falls over laughing. "We can not, and in fact down right refuse to support any measure that keeps us from having nuclear weapoons. We're a nation founded by Mercinaries for Mercinaries specifically to conduct war either for ourselves or our clients."

The Skybound Republic's position has not changed since you have not addressed our concerns about the idea of non-member states being the only ones with nuclear weapons.

by your standards tear gas to keep rioters from destroying a town would be illegal because it is a "weapon that uses the toxic properties of chemical substances to kill, injure, incapacitate" so instead we would have to use more deadly measures .....a foolishly idealistic idea

The Dominion of ka-Spel has decided not to endorse this bill in any current draft.

Princess Coldheart
Dominion of ka-Spel Secretary of State

You know, it's proposals like this that inspired me to write Nuclear Armaments (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110). Not to mention the WA friendly rewrite.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

1. Prohibits the mining of uranium and all other minerals, [...]

This is possibly the most severe anti-mining legislation I've ever seen.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary.

This is possibly the most severe anti-mining legislation I've ever seen.No kidding. You'd think they'd let iron slip by...

Considering that this proposal seeks to prohibit the mining of ALL minerals (for some unknown reason), the Subistratica has no choice but to wholly oppose it.

Have a pleasant day.
-October Siles-Vadice
[Newly elected Patent of the Subistratica and WA Ambassador]

perhaps they are trying to prevent people from building planes or missiles to deliver the nukes by making it impossible to mine minerals

This is a ridiculous idea, and we full heartedly oppose it. There are enemies and dissen... well enemies that would strike once we dissarmed.

The World Assembly,

DEFINING a nuclear weapon as any explosive weapon that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions of fission or a combination of fission and fusion to kill, injure, incapacitate or seriously impede on one or more individuals;

DEFINING a chemical weapon as any weapon that uses the toxic properties of chemical substances to kill, injure, incapacitate or seriously impede on one or more individuals;

DEFINING a biological weapon as any weapon that uses any pathogen to kill, injure, incapacitate or seriously impede on one or more individuals;

DENOUNCING nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry and the doctrine of “MAD (Mutally assured destruction),” as maliciously destructive and harmful to the benefit of mankind;

OBSERVING the environmental impacts of mining uranium, the use of pathogens in any environment, the stockpiling of toxic chemical warfare agents and the testing of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as intolerable and unsustainable;

CONCLUDING the creation and proliferation of nuclear bombs, biological or chemical weapons and any other weapons of mass destruction to pre-empt war with these weapons on a massive scale, which is against the interest of humanity;

1. Prohibits the mining of uranium and all other minerals, the research of nuclear, biological or chemical technology and the stockpiling of toxic agents for the purpose of creating thermonuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

2. Hereby prohibits without exception the creation of any nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry or any weapons of mass destruction by any nation.

3. Prohibits the testing of all nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in any environment.

4. Declares any current existing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or any weapons of mass destruction owned by any nation to hereby fall under the jurisdiction of this resolution henceforth be declared illegal, and ordered to be destroyed.

5. Establishes the “World Assembly Weaponry Investigation Committee (henceforth known as WAWIC),” charged with the responsibility of monitoring the mining of uranium and all other minerals, the research of nuclear, chemical and biological technology and the stockpiling of toxic agents by any country suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction, and the subsequent prosecution of any nation found to be developing said weapons.


Here are the changes you would have to make for the Kingdom of Droa to vote for this proposal.

Get rid of the three DEFINING just edit it and put it all in one.

Do not ban the mining of uranium and all other minerals as it is an economy boost and it's made redundant by banning the creation anyway.

Trash clause four it's redundant.

Clause five is ok but take out the mining thing.

with the ban of WMD's you open the door to let non-WA states hold all WA states hostage with no way to defend ourself. what dumpass thought this preposal up, must be a non-WA sponsered puppet state.

what dumpass thought this preposal up, must be a non-WA sponsered puppet state.

Attack the argument, not the player, please. And try using spellcheck next time.

I did attack the issue, i was merely act toward the person who wrote it how i would expect a rep from my nation to act toward a issue so outlandish. And as for the spell check I did but lost the Internet so i didn't read if it cough anything will make sure from now on.

You lost the Internet? Man, I hate it when that happens. Try checking under your sofa.
Actually, if you were to take the uranium and use it to power a nuclear power plant, which in turn powered the facility that made the biological weapons, you could be considered to be making bio-weapons out of uranium, but that's a bit of a stretch.
This sounds like some Texcellent (http://z1.invisionfree.com/forums/Texas/index.php?showtopic=3744&view=findpost&p=10354892) science.

We continue to applaud the spirit, but reject the content. In addition to our earlier objections, we offer the following comments:

Your definition of 'biological weapon' seems to include non-infectious pathogens. What is the point of prohibiting such? They're not necessarily any nastier than bullets. I can't, admittedly, think of an example of such a weapon, but they could be conceivably be employed in such a way that would not involve the major negative potential impact of biological weaponry, that is, the transmission of the pathogen to others.

Your preamble is unfortunate in that it seems to suggest preventing such war is not in the interests of humanity. Further, by suggesting that such weapons can only be used for that purpose, you're providing a good argument for their retention. The only way this proposal can succeed is if you argue they do not value as deterrents (against conventional as well as unconventional warfare) and arguably that they also induce such warfare.

As noted, the mining part is way too broad. I'm unclear, anyway, why you're singling out mining?

On development, research, and testing, using small quantities might be useful for the purposes of vaccination and countermeasures.

Destroying all stocks has an unfortunate ring to it: we hope you will specify that such disposal is to be safe.

There is no point specifying the acroynm, as WAWIC is never referred to again. It also sounds suspiciously like it is being given powers to prosecute non-members, which is illegal. And what form will this prosecution take? Will sanctions result?

-- Samantha Benson

This sounds like some Texcellent (http://z1.invisionfree.com/forums/Texas/index.php?showtopic=3744&view=findpost&p=10354892) science.

Hey, I did say that it was a stretch.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I must disagree with this for two reasons:

1. As has already pointed out it would allow non-WA members to have nuclear weapons which is idiotic

2. I assume this also stops us from using said Biological and Chemical deterrents against our own people. In this case I cannot support it.

We do not support it on the basis that section 1 will be impossible to enforce. Either no one will be able to mine uranium, even for peaceful purposes or everyone will because it will be impossible to tell what the uranium is used for until it is used.

Just to clear some things up for some people...


1. Prohibits the mining of uranium and all other minerals for the purpose of creating thermonuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

I'm not proposing that we prohibt the mining of ALL MINERALS. Those who think I am obviously can't read.

We can read just fine. You have no comma after 'stockpiling of toxic agents': hence, 'for the purposes of...' applies only to that. If you want it to modify all three phrases, you need to add in a comma after 'agents'.

But that then raises the question of why mining is prohibited but not the development of chemical agents or precursors, why uranium is specified but not plutonium, and so on.

I guess this just isn't going to work. Sorry for trying. Thanks everyone.

No no no! Don't give up, and even if you do, don't apologise for trying! It's good to bring new proposals to the forum, but they just always need a bit of work. My comments, and I'm sure those of others, aren't mean to put you off: it's just, some changes need to be made in order for it to be a good proposal. But it's a good idea, worth persevering with.

I have to say, dealing with all three weapons types in one proposal is a bit ambitious. It might be better to deal with just one of them, so you can concentrate on good definitions and appropriate requirements.

Some previous examples from the old UN that might be helpful: Chemical Weaponry Ban (withdrawn) (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/chemical_weaponry_ban.html), UN Bio Agent Convention (passed) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518539).

No no no! Don't give up, and even if you do, don't apologise for trying! It's good to bring new proposals to the forum, but they just always need a bit of work. My comments, and I'm sure those of others, aren't mean to put you off: it's just, some changes need to be made in order for it to be a good proposal. But it's a good idea, worth persevering with.I dunno my proposals seem to just garner people saying they don't like them and then leave. Not many give any help at all.

As to the current proposal here....

My statement stands. Remove clause 1 as it's impossible to enforce.

I dunno my proposals seem to just garner people saying they don't like them and then leave. Not many give any help at all.

Well, there are exceptions to every rule :-)

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

My comments, and I'm sure those of others, aren't mean to put you off

Well, apart from you, yes they are. It's not as if everyone has said "This needs some work," they've simply stated that it's a poor proposal and they won't vote for it.

Despite your encouragement I really feel that the idiocy of the WA is blocking this. Modeling it on previous UN resolutions is really pointless as it will eventually get repealed like a whole lot of resolutions did. Besides, I don't think the WA wants to see just the same old thing again- or am I wrong again?

And if it's such a good idea that is worth persevering with then you can persevere with it. I will turn my attention towards other areas where lunatic ideologues of MAD do not dominate.

1. Prohibits the mining of uranium and all other minerals for the purpose of creating thermonuclear, chemical or biological weapons.


Surely this also falls under the game-mechanics umbrella as well given that quite a few nations currently have:

A substantial private sector is dominated by the Uranium Mining industry.

I would like to echo a previous comment: Idea is super...content needs adjusting....otherwise WD :)

Surely this also falls under the game-mechanics umbrellaWell... one of the categories is "Environmental: Uranium Mining"...

nuclear weapons are essental for my country survival i will continue to build
nuclear weapons for my country survival karvco already has enought to launch a full scale nuclear assault a dozen times over

It would be disaster if WA members can't have nuclear weapons and yet non-members had them: that would make it nearly impossible for WA members to win wars. Besides, we can't be stripped all the way down to just fighting with just sticks and stones against a fully equipped enemy, right?

we the state of newfilothei believe that the thechonolgy of WMD must be given to all countries so there will balance among all states

It would be disaster if WA members can't have nuclear weapons and yet non-members had them: that would make it nearly impossible for WA members to win wars. Besides, we can't be stripped all the way down to just fighting with just sticks and stones against a fully equipped enemy, right?
Yes, because that's exactly what this does, and it's not at all like every conventional weapon under the sun doesn't remain an option for WA members if unconventional agents of death are banned.

-- Samantha Benson