NationStates Jolt Archive

Weapons of Mass Destruction Ban

06-05-2008, 22:03
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending - Significant.

The World Assembly,

1.) Acknowledging the need for effective national defense of its members,

2.) Mindful that such defense does not include measures to decimate or terrorize the civilian population of any nation, and that such measures are a violation of these civilians' human rights,

3.) Aware of the existence of weapon technologies that, due to their devastating, cruel or uncontrollable effects, are primarily or exclusively suited to inflict mass casualties on civilian targets,

4.) Concerned that even the existence of such weapons constitutes a threat to the safety of civilians,

5.) Determined to prevent such threats in order to protect human rights the world over:


6.) DEFINES "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as a term to include all weapon technologies - nuclear, chemical, biological or conventional - whose effects are either exceptionally massive or uncontrollable in scope, making them
suitable only to inflict mass casualties against a civilian population,

7.) DEFINES "Weapons of Mass Suffering" as a further term to include weapon technologies whose effects are aimed at killing or maiming humans in exceptionally cruel ways, making them particularly suitable to torture or instill terror in a civilian population,

8.) PROHIBITS the development, production, possession, trading and use of such weapons by its member nations,

9.) DEMANDS that the development, production, trading and use of these weapons are immediately ceased, and such stockpiles as exist are safely dismantled, and

10.) ENCOURAGES member nations to exert diplomatic and economic pressure on their neighbors to do likewise.

This proposal currently requires 48 additional delegate approvals in the short time that remains. I still hope that it reaches the floor (delegates who are reading this, please help!) but in case it doesn't I welcome any editing suggestions you have for the next attempt. :)
Quintessence of Dust
06-05-2008, 22:44
Your definition is going to be subject to much wrangling and argument. Why not specify the types of weapon? You could list the characteristics of a biological agent, of a weapon that works by chemical process upon the victim, weapons creating fragments undetectable by X-ray, blinding lasers, and so on, and then it will be much clearer what this proposal will particularly prohibit.

But I think the operative section is good, and covers most exigencies, except the use of such weapons by proxy, which should also be prohibited. An excellent start!

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria
07-05-2008, 08:34
You are correct in that the definition leaves everything up to interpretation. The problem with this resolution is that the level of technology in the various member nations is wildly divergent. I am trying to cover things as simple as rat corpses infected with the Black Plague and as advanced as planet-splitting Death Stars. Listing all of these would be long-winded and yet inevitably incomplete.

Instead, I have attempted to describe the effects: Weapons that are intended to instill fear and pain rather than death on one side (eg. some chemical weapons, and blinding lasers), weapons that are uncontrollable once unleashed (eg. Ebola or aerosol anthrax), and weapons that are so vast that you can't help but kill civilians with it (eg. Tsar Bomba, Death Star, artificial Black Holes).

Lasit-Ka, WA ambassador of Ermarian
07-05-2008, 12:13
I agree that weapons of mass suffering should be banned, and some of the uncontrollable weapons of mass destruction. However, I don't think ALL WMDs should be banned. Some of those weapons are very useful as a deterrent against non-WA nations that will still have such weapons.

Jack Flat, WA rep of Centrax
07-05-2008, 12:36
I agree that non-member nations have no incentive to dismantle their weapons, and that overall, the resolution may put WA members at a disadvantage in their defensive powers, even in the name of leading by example. Clearly, these weapons are the most dangerous when they are in the hands of people who have no hesitation to use them against civilians. Such people would have to be at least somewhat sociopathic, certainly without compassion for their fellow humans.

They would likely not be deterred by threats to their own population - religious fanatics would not care about anything, and despots might fortify themselves and let the rest of the population suffer.

Therefore, I do not trust Mutually Assured Destruction in the sense of balancing mass atrocities against mass atrocities. I would be more willing to rely on peace-time measures like economic sanctions to coerce these rogue nations into dismantling their arsenals. If we can make them get rid of the weapons while we are at peace, then we do not need to play games of Nuclear Winter Chicken with them if a war breaks out.

Lasit-Ka, WA ambassador of Ermarian
07-05-2008, 15:35
6.) DEFINES "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as a term to include all weapon technologies - nuclear, chemical, biological or conventional - whose effects are either exceptionally massive or uncontrollable in scope, making them suitable only to inflict mass casualties against a civilian population,We find fault here and that it will lead to all members being disarmed and not able to use current weapons to defend themselves simply because it might kill to many civilian in an enemy arena where it is used. Also what is the number on Mass, just how many need be killed before it comes in conflict with the intent of this resolution.. one or millions.. why got with civilians why not include livestock that civilian raise for food and crops they grow for same.. Side effects of a weapon can do just as much harm as they can when first deployed over a target and are sometimes more deadly after first release than during the release because their effects infect millions more than might be killed in the initial release. Only those that die later die slowly and in greater pain than those die during those first periods or release..

Amanda Craniurear,
Nineth Minister of Health,
Daughter Garne Medical Society,
Major Doctor Genetics Royal Staff,
07-05-2008, 20:32
I cannot support this, I'm afraid. There are too many lunatic nations out there who aren't in the WA, and those not in the WA out number us in it severely. Broadly speaking, I would be in favour of banning chemical and biological weapons, however, whilst Cobdenia does not have nuclear weapons (and nuclear weapons cannot be used against Cobdenia...long story), we do feel they are an effective deterrent. Using economic sanctions is all well and good, but sanctions by WA members are very unlikely to make any signifigant dent to the economies of non-members. Simply put, there is next to nothing stopping non-WA nuking a WA member to kingdom come just for shits and giggles - all the diplomatic ticking off would count for nothing (OoC: it would be like India destroying their nuclear weapons during the cold war, and expecting the USSR and USA by threatening sanctions). At least now there's the possibility they won't nuke us in fear of being nuked themselves.

We also have strong concerns about limiting the use of conventional weapons as defined by this resolution as a WMD. From what I can tell, this would limit the possibility of the bombing of industrial sectors of cities during wartime, something we feel could be necessary. Furthermore, it could even be said that this definition would prevent us from using naval forces to blockade a country. This is utterly unacceptable.
08-05-2008, 00:47
The Narnian King of Fotar will not support this proposal. It is simply an invitation for non-WA nations to use their WMD/WMSs on member nations with full knowledge that the same won't be coming back at them.

Not a desirable notion at all.
King of the Narnian Kingdom of Fotar
Vice Chancellor of the Council of Narnia (
08-05-2008, 15:56
You know, it's proposals like this that further convince me that my Nuclear Arms Possession Act is still needed.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative
08-05-2008, 16:20
And have my Government have to spend billions decomissioning the missiles and the silos as well as my tactical submarine fleet..

No way. i've asked my WA delegate not to endorse this act (though I dont think he could anyway)
Quintessence of Dust
08-05-2008, 18:55
I understand the argument about technological levels. However, if one nation is not capable of developing giant space lasers, then they will not be adversely affected by this proposal's prohibiting them. Furthermore, the very fact that everything from a diseased cow carcass to a warhead containing smallpox can be used is further evidence that there are some salient characteristics of 'biological weapons' that can be specified, regardless of their relative technological sophistication.

Please understand, our main concern is that nations will simply evade the prohibitions by arguing - however ridiculously - that their weapons are not 'massive' or 'uncontrollable' in scope: for example, they could claim they have a few vaccines, and hence their bioweapon is 'controllable'. Silly, I know, but this seems to be an area where it's important to specify what is being prohibited to avoid omissions and evasions.
And have my Government have to spend billions decomissioning the missiles and the silos as well as my tactical submarine fleet..
As opposed to how much in maintenance costs? It may well be less, but it's still not exactly the price of a sandwich.

-- Samantha Benson