NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC: Continuation of the much-delayed meeting series...the last.

This is to recap on everything and add in our little bouts before a draft is presented at the end of the meeting.

IC:

The Chancellor with his three accompaning Controlees waited in the well-known room in Portshire City, awaiting the first of the delegates intentively.

OOC: At last Truitt - thought you had forgotten this.

IC:

Ellias Aubec strides in, his entourage following. He had been waiting in his admittedly nice room nearby, for the 3rd part of the conference to start. He had whiled away the time looking through his nation's recent news, and keeping up on international news.

"Ah, hello there Chancellor, nice to see you again."

Prime Minister Pha'mont Lefft of Potty 5 arrives. When asked why the emperor is not with him he said 'the emperor had other business to attend to'

OOC: I wouldn't forget anything...on purpose.


IC:

"Ah, Mr. Aubec, nice to see you again. How are the girls treating yeah?" Winked the Chancellor getting up and putting out his hand to shake the man's.

"Ah, thank you, they were most ... delectable. The food was excellent. I hope this meeting will go as well as the others."

"Ah well, they are nice, I will admit." The Chancellor smiled, as did the others behind him. The mixture of Sicilian and Hispanic had definately paid off in the gene pool. "Well then....uhmmm" trying to think of a subject to talk about before the others arrived, to to carry over their time. "How about that painting?" He said, refered to the massive moral on the ceiling of the Emeraldian Revolt, showing many peasants fighting off an Italian army with fists against rifles.

They had already had a conversation about it, but he was blank of any other subjects.

The Supreme Ruler walked into the room flanked by only one aide. Taking his seat at the table he nodded to the other leaders that arrived.

Xaia Hawk arrives and sits down and gazes at the paintings and chats with the other delegates..

(OOC: I hope the discussions start soon)

"Ok, while we wait for the others, lets go over what we've decided so far. We came up on a set of rules for dealing with POWs, and negotiations between two hostile nations. May I suggest that for this next meeting we include a discussion about dealing with spies and trade embargos?" Ellias takes a sip of the drink in front of him.

Prime Minister Neo and Deputy Prime Minister Leong had arrived early as usual. It was a long flight, and at lot of strange things had been going about. This time, Neo had taken his medication, and hoped that things would be better this time....

Lefft : "Well when will we be begining?"

"Its suddenly very quite in here. Is there an important event we should be watching?"

"Ah yes, the table was talking a minute ago." Humored the Chancellor glancing at the table for a moment. "Trade embargoes I can work with in this meeting, I am sure, but that might trail off to economic pacts....and the whole spy thing will be unable to maintain, but discussing it would be healthy!" Enjoyed the Chancellor as food started to trail out of the doors opposite of the entrance. "Now, what shall we begin with?"

"Lets get this started..." the Supreme Ruler said, "I am needed elsewhere."

"Very well then - what shall we discuss this time? I've already suggested two things we could discuss."

The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister walked toward the lavish table, greeted the Chancellor of Truitt and sat down. After hearing the first few suggestions, he spoke.

"Perhaps we should discuss ways of countering corruption in governments and businesses?"

"Well then let me start and we can go from there, maybe our rambling will cover many topics without me having to interrupt to change the subject." Introduced the Chancellor sitting up in his chair.

"Economics is the first topic I'd presume. How should we, and when should we, consider and deploy in an economic embargo and to what limits shall this hold?"

"Hmm, I think that it would be best to initiate a trade embargo when it is obvious that any profits or materials of trade will be used either against the populace or not used for the populace." Ellias takes a sip from his drink.

"I don’t think that there is any need for treaties that make rulings about embargos. What would be the purpose?"

"Hmm, I think that it would be best to initiate a trade embargo when it is obvious that any profits or materials of trade will be used either against the populace or not used for the populace." Ellias takes a sip from his drink.
"I agree with Mr. Aubec." Leong nodded. Neo's good friend and political aide was about to answer the delegate from Potty 5's response, but he decided to let Neo himself to do it.

"So that state's do not take trade embargoes to the extreme, perhaps?"

"Well then, what are we waiting for?" the Supreme Ruler asked, "Does anyone have any ideas for this discussion on economic?"

[OOC: TAG for a response.]

'Hmm, economic embargos huh? Well I think the usual routes will probably work: stopping trade with the nation, actively preventing goods from the nation from reaching any of your own citizens, attempting to get other nations to join you ecetera. I suppose we could try to swamp the targets nation's trade partners with goods from our own nations, with higher quality and lower prices so that the target either looses customers, or goes broke trying to better our prices - we can do it as we would not be under a trade embargo already."

"But what if states continue to beat the dead horse?" asked Leong politely after the Phoenixian delegate. "As in to say, they keep on the embargo despite the fact that the embargoed state's economy is in a severely critical state until the point there is no economy at all? But usually most people wouldn't be that cruel of course."

"Well, some would, of course, or else you would not have thought of that comment, mi amigo." The Chancellor said to the Southeastasian looking over after taking a sip of prime Emeraldian wine. "I would say that an embargo should not be prevented by this agreement, but we only discuss on how and when an embargo is appropriate, due to the fact that sometimes an embargo must continue on to force a nation stop their ways, even if it means an economic callapse.

"Look at the good side, if the economy comes near callapse and the government stops spending on healthcare to keep their economy and beurocracy stable, a revolution will begin in the nation, giving them three problems: You, their buisnesses, and their dogs they could not train."

"And what of the people who will suffer..."

"Well," said the Chancellor putting down his glass thinking for a moment, "they must either be with their nation to be embargoed, or against it. Once the embargo takes effect, protests will errupt. That sort of was the point of the original embargoes, to create civil instability. That and also make 'em lose a lot of money, but both will force a nation to capsize unless it is Nazi Germany, than it'll cause an invasion of your nation, which may just cause more civil instability."

He looked to the DMGian. "Say you were in a nation...I assume you are familar with '1984'? If not, humor me. Say Oceania was embargoed by the other two superpowers. It has no real way of defending its economic strength, and thus, weakens healthcare and improvements to roads and the such. The people get wind, get pissed to Hell, protest, and before you know it, they capsize under your whelm or the people take hold of the situation."

"I am indeed familiar with 1984," The Supreme Ruler added quickly before continuing onto his main point. "The problem is that what you have is wishful thinking. Yes, there is a possibility that the people rise up and overthrow the government, but it is also possible that the military is mobilized and crushes the people - I assume you are familiar with pre-invasion Iraq."

"My point is that in the meantime during all these hopeful revolts or protests, the people are living without healthcare or possibly worse... maybe even without food and clean water - the good people of the nation suffer because of your trade embargo."

"It's an embargo. There a great many nations that would not be involved in the embargo and they would continue to trade. The (RL) US has an embargo on (RL) Cuba but France, Canada, UK... still trade with Cuba. There are a great number of nations, this means that unless there was a huge very important trade (e.g. Oil to the US, or our space stations parts with DMG) there would be alternative trading partners (e.g. look to South America for Oil). It is not like a blockade (an act of war) where all trade is stopped (by force) just trade between a limited number of nations. Also the enforcers of the embargo will be hurt as well. A huge embargo of the sort that would bring down a nation would have to be put together very well, be massive, and have the nation have a pre-existing reliance on the nations that are part of the embargo."

"I wouldn't use RL Cuba as an example... they are doing so well and neither is their population."

OOC: Do tell me how the hell do the most of the real life countries exist in NationStates? With all the different sorts of alternate timelines in NS, it would be effectively safe to say that all of the RL countries never existed or ceased to exist in all kinds of different ways in all kinds of timelines. Oh, to Truitt, two things:


Remember the commando team my characters requested you to send in? Click here to send them in. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453436)
It's 'Southeast Asian', not 'Southeastasian'!


IC:

"Ah yes," smiled Neo chiming in a little late, "I liked Orwell's novel...it was a masterpiece. Anyway, the three superstates weren't really at war with each other or performing embargoes at all. The governments of the superstates were, when you look at it in a certain way, one and the same; a global totalitarian dictatorship government, always waging a huge propaganda campaign against their subjects."

"Essentially, Oceania was putting up lies to make their subjects hate the other two superstates and as did the East Asian government and the Eurasian government, when really, the real winners were the Party, hording all the wealth while holding totalitarian control. But really, Orwell's vision will never become totally true, thanks to the fact that it takes a lot of funding to maintain a secret police because of the population and the fact that police states eventually collapse due to the funding of the secret police and surveillance cameras and other things to watch the people. The economy would implode."

OOC: Damn...I just got back from Thanksgiving and meant to look there but I never opened my TGs for the link, sorry bout that. And I get everyone's possessive tense wrong anyways....

You'll all notice that I say "by this treaty" a bit and that is because the treaty should not include every single thing, ICly and OOCly that's a pain and is bound to be broken countless times.

IC:

"Well then, maybe the point of an embargo, by this treaty, would be to criple the nation and then invade the struggling country." Suggested the Chancellor, now knowing his defeat in his original stance.

"Hmm, interesting points there. Embargo as a precursor to invasion. We could impose some sort of blockade, and rather than stopping all ships, just prevent those that were carrying the cargo we embargoed with them. That may cause logistical problems trying to blockage all that traffic, but it might be more feasible in order to allow necessary materials for rebuilding, while preventing materials that are required for the blockaged nation to create weapons."

ooc: this is dying.

ooc: maybe we should end the Portshire conventions. They were good while they laster but a lack of interest and worth in these have let them die. It has been 5 days since an IC post.

"Hmm. I.. An embargo is a political tool to show a nation that you dislike sometihng it does. It only works if a large number if nations come together and put pressure on other nations to stop trade. It is not an effective weapon of war. And a blockcade is an act of war. You cant go around siezing the cargo of ships (in other nations' waters)"

OOC: In RL maratime law ditcates that a military ship can only search a ship (of another nation in international water) if the ship has engaged in piracy, slave trading, illegal broadcasts, or lacks nationality. Also a blockade is an ack of war (so it is not an option unless you want to go to war). There are of corse special cases like Iraq (in the interwar period).

OOC: Hmm, well it was only an idea considering there weren't really any other points. And I agree DMG, this 3rd one is dying a slow and painful death.

Embargos will not effect a nation much, atleast at first. Unless a number of the nation's important trading partners join the embargo. I also assume you normaly would not embargo a nation if you needed them for certain goods or sod a lot of goods to them.

OOC: Dangit, I had completely forgotten about this. Well, I'm sure it can be finnished off soon-ish.

The Supreme Ruler spoke after a long silence, "I don't think we should waste our time talking about such issues as embargos. If a nation wants to embargo another... it may. It can just stop trading with the nation... its not a big deal."

He paused for a moment before continuing, "We should move on to more important subjects - if any of you have any ideas it would be greatly helpful. Otherwise... I see no reason to remain here."

The Chancellor seeing how the last meeting was dying quickly in interest, thought of an interesting topic that had not yet come up. "How about Weapons of Mass Destruction? Like nuclear, neutron, chemical, and biological weaponry. While we're at it, how about satellites that use these weapons?"

"Now here is a topic worthy of our discussion," the Supreme Ruler said. "I believe that any nation should be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction so long as they are responsible with them. Of course psychotic rulers or nations that threaten everybody and use them against innocent nations or peoples should be dealt with."

"Why of course, but what I mean is what conditions they should be permitted in war. Offencively, defencively, as a tactic or as a last-resort, and I would like to cover every type of W.M.D., as to avoid confusion for the future."

"I, the Founder and first Prime Minister of the United Sovereign Nations of Southeast Asia have made it very clear that we do not possess weapons of mass destruction at all. But we do have SDIs and a collection of nuclear bunkers, which we purchased from the NTG Corporation to stand against the Joint Conglomerates' orbital platforms."

"In fact, all of the members in the cabinet agree that WMDs should not be used." chimed in Leong, "But psychotic dictators possessing WMDs....you're gonna need a lot of diplomacy to try and convince them not to use them, or risk M.A.D., we will NEVER use WMDs as a last resort, even against foreign powers that are way too strong for us to deal with, such as Automagfreek....nobody wants to be at the receiving end of a Blood Feud, don't you all agree?"

"WMDs are a great thing that makes nations able to live in relative peace. The idea that an unknown number of sub can be any where in the world carrying a payload capable of decimating any nation means that few people would ever consider a full scale invasion, it tends to limits war to a lesser intensity.

Also I think that a nation should be able to employ tactical nuclear weapons in international waters or at least on its own territory (but never on another nation’s territory without express permission), they are just much more efficient then conventional weapons and the radiation is over rated. Many nations and even private companies employ nuclear powered ships, why not weapons. Though I think that nuclear powered ships should not be allowed to enter into another nations territorial waters without permission.

Missile Defense is a destabilizing factor; it makes a nation think it can with stand a nuclear attack with at least its most important assesses intact. Of cores the fact that most nations have not signed arms treats that limit the number of warheads per missile or total, and with the most advanced missiles and countermeasures Missile defense can be over whelmed by a single missile with 160 1kt warheads, with three times that number of decoys and all are maneuvering erratically.

That is all on nuclear weapons. I suggest a banning of all biological weapons due to the dangers involved (nuclear weapons don’t grow and evolve on there own) and chemical weapons is a whole bag of worms but most chemical weapons are not as evil as they are stated to be but I believe there should be limits, only chemical weapons that are not intended to be lethal as a primary effect (as any chemical can be lethal)

As for misuse of weapons of mass destruction, the international community should be able to deal with.

Also despite action my nation has undertaken, we have changed policy and believe greatly against the weapons in space (beyond FOBS and ICBMs that travel through space on their way to the target) and there should be no weapons stationed in space for periods longer then 24 hours.

So in closing what I suggest:

Nuclear Power: Only in international waters and your own territory unless you get permission.
Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Only in international waters and your own territory unless you get permission.
Strategic Nuclear Weapons: Make for less full scale wars and full scale invasions.
Non-Lethal Chemical Weapons: Are OK, most nations use them on their own people already.
Lethal Chemical Weapons: Are dangerous, suggest a ban
Biological Weapons: Are the most dangerous, implore a ban
Space Weapons: implore a ban, though FOBS and high altitude ICBMs that simply travel through space are ok.
Strategic Missile Defense: is a destabilizing factor but, except for space based weapons, this should be allowed
Nations that Misuse Weapons of Mass Destruction: Should be dealt case by case by the international community which is often more then happy to stop such threats."

"Where do I begin..." the Supreme Ruler said as he rose slowly to his feet to address the recent comments of the delegate from Potty 5.

"First of all... nuclear weapons in the hands of reasonable, responsible and careful minded leaders makes the world a slightly safer place. It is when a rogue general, psychotic dictator, or other unstable body gets its hands on a nuclear weapons that there is a problem that encompasses every nation in the world."

"You say that nuclear weapons are more efficient than conventional... efficient at what? Killing people and cities, that is what. Why would any nation have the need, other than a diluted and evil one, to use nuclear weapons on its own territory or coastal waters. Unless of course you are talking about testing of said weapons... in which case I see no need to discuss such a matter."

"As for radiation... it is not overated. It can destroy lives, soceities, and even whole cultures. It has the ability to make land uninhabitable, destroy vegetation and poison water and food supplies. You speak of how chemical weapons can grow and spread - what of radiation. It can affect the unborn, it can mutate the living, it will spread through the generations... if those generations can even survive it."

"As for your argument concenring nuclear ships... well I think you may misunderstand what nuclear ships are. Nuclear powered ships themselves are not dangerous and cannot attack. It is when they are outfitted with missiles, guns, and torpedoes that they become dangerous - so to say that because a company or nation has nuclear powered ships it should be allowed to have nuclear weapons is a gross misstatement. The benefits that nuclear powered ships recieve from the nuclear power source are that they are quieter, more efficient, capable of staying submerged longer, and don't have to refill their power source except for every few years. They should in no way be referred to in any discussion separate from conventional ships."

"I am not sure where you get the notion that biological weapons or chemical weapons on more dangerous than nuclear weapons. They are all dangerous and if used in strategic ways they each have their advantages... as such, I don't believe that you should be talking about storehousing one type, restricting another, and banning the third."

In conclusion:
Nuclear Power: We shouldn't even be discussing.
Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Allowed to maintain and storehouse.
Strategic Nuclear Weapons: Allowed to maintain and storehouse.
Non-Lethal Chemical Weapons: Allowed to maintain and storehouse.
Lethal Chemical Weapons: Allowed to maintain and storehouse.
Biological Weapons: Allowed to maintain and storehouse.
Space Weapons: Allowed to maintain and storehouse.
Strategic Missile Defense: Allowed to maintain and storehouse.
Nations that Misuse Weapons of Mass Destruction: Should be dealt case by case by the international community which is often more then happy to stop such threats."

"Hm, quite an interesting propossition, Mister, but what I don't see is that the fact of restriction of space weaponry, commonly noted as Ortillary. It is something that is needed in modern day warfare. Satellites which can attack others for intelligance supremacy and strike satellites, far away from armies who sieze silos."

He took and sip of his drink and then commented "On the other arms, offencively at least, I whole heartly agree, with the exception of nuclear-powered vessels entering territorial waters. Offencively, of course, this is an act of war reguardless, since all nuclear-powered ships are military bound, but defencively I belive it is understood that some vessels, if not the majority, will be powered by splitting an atom."

ooc: incase you missed my post at the end of the page http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10046395&postcount=45

OOC: I commented on yours, DMG. It was Pooty's that I did not respond to.

OOC: I commented on yours, DMG. It was Pooty's that I did not respond to.

ooc: doesn't seem like it. I didn't even comment about space weaponry and I certainly didn't advocate its restriction in space (quite the opposite actually). And for the nuclear powered ships, you are sort of making my point that there is no point of discussing nuclear powered ships separately. If they enter territorial waters than it is an act of war equal to that of an old 1950s submarine entering.

note* not all nuclear powered ships in the Dominion, are military.

OOC: Well, I did skim his, I guess I did touch it a bit more. Lemme go back over both of your posts and see where I may have gotten mixed up at.

IC:

"I do agree that a nation should not be restricted by making such weapons, but what I would like to discuss is how they should be used, if at all. Restricting nations will cause wars which they are supposed to prevent, and seems useless to me."

"And that is why you can't restrict them with laws or rules..." The Supreme Ruler said as he remained standing. "There are obvious understood agreements not to use such weapons in any situation... to do so breaks a code of ethics and is usually responded to by a coalition formed by multiple international nations."

"Wll that not stop a nation with a different war policy to use tactical nuclear arms, or anti-infantry chemicals on their enemys' front lines? I will admit my own tactic is to use neutronic-based arms offencively, being that it leaves no major damage or radiation, only destruction of carbon in the area. My doctrine, of course, is different from yours, I would belive."

"Well... there is an understood code between sensible nations to not use weapons of mass destruction in war or peace. If you are facing a rogue, terrorist, unstable, or psychotic nation in a war in which they use WMDs... it isn't likely that they would agree to any international agreement such as this anyway and so it doesn't matter if we include those situations in this discussion.

As for your neutronic weapons... we would be interested to learn more about them before we pass judgement. Just how exactly does this weapon destroy carbon atoms...?"

"Very interesting. How would space based 'rods of god' be classified? They appear to have the smae destructive powers as a nuke, but without the nasty after effects."

"All the better than... if we are to agree on nuclear weapons being acceptable, then 'rods of god' must all be accepted."

"I have 9 things to say... rather long things.

1: There are nuclear powered civilian ships (in the real world) and I believe that many nations would not want other countries mobile nuclear power plants operating on their territory. Also (at least in the real world) even countries on good standing with each other often do not want nuclear powered ships in ports. With the growing use of nuclear power in mobile applications (in NS at least) it should be in every counties right to choose and select what nuclear power can operate on it territory. And if used in war such, if these vessels enter the territory of another nation that nation should be able to consider that the equal of the use of tactical nuclear weapons or at least radiological weapons. Nuclear power in platforms that are likely to be destroyed violently or come under violent attack is very dangerous and is not good will towards future relations between those nations.

2: As for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in self defense on ones territory, this is reasonable as it is a great deterrent to any who would try to invade and even if used the effects are limited; as long as it is not used in a populated area, I imagine it would be used primarily on large ships and ship formations over 100 miles off the coast, or in remote unpopulated areas which are common in some countries (In this way collateral damage would be similar to above ground nuclear tests). The question is not weather it is best but does a nation have the right, and I think they should. It also would mean that more often lesser forces would be deployed so that the invaded nation would not think that the nuclear weapons are warranted as the repercussions, even just internal could be great.

3: As for use of nuclear weapons outside of one territory, tactical usage in Open Ocean is not very bad as there will be little collateral damage. It is a rather drastic thing but it is no more drastic then the so called 'super dreadnoughts' and the immense number of ships that are often deployed. If states at war are allowed to use tactical nuclear weapons in international water at least 500 miles from any shore not of the user then this is a relatively low collateral damage situation. There should be a guideline for use.

4: Also all nuclear weapons detonated over land should be required to airburst at a high enough elevation so that the fire ball does not come in contact with the ground, this will reduce the amount of fall out greatly (also nuclear weapons are more efficient this way). Also in tactical applications large nuclear weapons have less of a point so un-boosted cleaner nuclear weapons are more likely to be employed.

5: Nuclear weapons are more efficient at many goals. A 20kg warhead can have a rating of 1,000 tons of TNT. Such a warhead has more power then any non-nuclear bomb that is feasible to build. But in wars in the past (RL at least) many times the worth of this small nuclear weapon were dropped. I am totally agents the targeting of civilian targets with nuclear weapons, If you remember I said they should be limited to international waters and your own territory. If I was not clear, that does not include the territory of your enemies.

6: Cost wise to kill a target [nation] out of the three nuclear is the most expensive, followed by chemical, and with the cheapest being biological. This based simply on the area. Nuclear weapons require expensive and relatively rare weapons grade uranium or plutonium. The task of enriching uranium is prohibitively expensive, and requires a large amount of work (though once you finish that a nuclear bomb is very simple to make) and after that there are limitation to the size of nuclear weapons you can make, the smallest efficient nuclear weapons are about 20kg with out a delivery system. The idea of limiting the use of nuclear weapons is so that one nation is prohibited from launching an attack on another nation so that the government will have to think about the consequences of deploying nuclear weapon on its own soil (so to speak).

7: There is an old saying 'war is fought with weapons, not with poisons'. My emperor being well versed the in history of chemical and biological weapons; he sees them as the worst weapons man can ever use against each other. Nagasaki was rebuilt as was Hiroshima, the destruction and damage was obvious. And people knew that this was a serious issue. Agent Orange (in RL Vietnam) on the other hand was a "non-lethal" chemical (not even a weapon) that has caused far more suffering then all nuclear weapons combined. People dismiss often invisible chemical weapons not knowing what the full effect is and only years later it is revealed what the great extent damage that has be caused, even if it was not intended to hurt any one. Potty 5 sees chemical weapons as a bane of the earth. We suggest a banning of all chemical weapons except for a set list of agents (CS, OC, Phosphorus [as an incendiary only], non-toxic stink bombs, and come to mind.)

8: When I say these think I mean use; I mean ban the use, not ban the existence of the items. Even though I state that strategic nuclear weapons are not to be used, Potty 5 will not give up its strategic nuclear deterrence ability; same goes for others. We continue to develop weapons and systems that we hope we never use. The idea is to set up a guide line of what a nation can do without causing a nuclear, chemical, and or biological world war. Do you think the doomsday machine in 'Dr. Strangelove' would be intended to be used? No it is a deterrent to stop the use of other weapons.

9: To sum it up:

Nuclear Power : Only in international waters and your own teratory unless you have permission.
Tactical Nuclear Weapons : Allowed to maintain and storehouse, and use on your own territory for any reason, but if detonated over land it must be an airburst of sufficient height to make shore that the fireball does not touch the ground. If under ground the blast must be completely contained. Also you can use them at sea as long as they are at least 500 miles from any foreign cost. If you have permission you can use them closer.
Strategic Nuclear Weapons : Allowed to maintain and storehouse.
Non-Lethal Chemical Weapons : Allowed to maintain and storehouse. CS, OC, and non-toxic stink bombs can be used as chemical weapons. Note that many non-lethal chemical weapons are lethal. Phosphorus can be used for its incendiary effect.
Lethal Chemical Weapons : Allowed to maintain and storehouse.
Biological Weapons : Allowed to maintain and storehouse. We wish for a total ban on use.
Space Weapons : Allowed to maintain and storehouse. We wish for all space based weapons to be dismantled or destroyed.
Strategic Missile Defense : Allowed to maintain and storehouse. Land based systems can be used. Any system can be used to stop Strategic Nuclear Weapons.
Nations that Misuse Weapons of Mass Destruction : Should be dealt case by case by the international community which is often more then happy to stop such threats.

As a note I intend these rules for wars not of the ‘Total’ type"
Here are some addition items

“Addendum 1: Clarification: FOBS (MT): Weapons which simple travel through space, such as Fraction Orbital Bombardment Systems (and similar systems) are allowed to be stockpiled maintained, stockpiled, and if they contain nuclear warheads as payload they can be used tacitly like it is underlined for tactical nuclear weapons. Also these are often of good use for nations which lack forward missile bases that need a nuclear deterrent capability.

Addendum 2: Clarification: Tactical Nuclear Weapons (MT): The only difference between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons that this suggested treaty sees is in use. A nuclear weapon with any delivery type and any size warhead can target a tactical target (as permitted by the section on tactical nuclear weapons). Also neutron bombs, or enhanced radiation nuclear bombs are permitted [as tactical nuclear weapons]. Under no circumstances are “cobalt bombs” allowed to be used as tactical nuclear weapons.

Addendum 3: The Future: Space (PMT): With the growing importance of space in warfare, it seems as though it is impossible to stop the broad creation and use of space based weapons. Space based weapons such as KE orbital bombardment and nuclear orbital bombardment can be used as tactical nuclear weapons except instead they can be used as long as they are not target on another nations territory (weather or not they have strategic capability is irrelevant). Also any weapon systems can be stored, stockpiled, and maintained in space.”

1. I am not sure what anyone would have against nuclear powered civilian ships operating in their territory. Of course it should be every nations right to choose - that is exactly why we don't need to discuss it - it had no right to be in this conversation. I have no idea why you think that, "if these vessels enter the territory of another nation that nation should be able to consider that the equal of the use of tactical nuclear weapons or at least radiological weapons." That is just absolute lunacy and makes no sense whatsoever. Nuclear powered ships themselves are not dangerous... Now maybe you mean submarines with nuclear tipped ICBMs - that is a completely different issue.

2. Nobody would send "lesser forces" because they were scared to provoke a nuclear attack. If you invade a country... you INVADE a country. There is no, "I am invading... but only with a few troops, so don't use nuclear weapons." Also, nobody would send lesser forces that would most likely be overrun and destroyed just because the nation had nuclear weapons.

3. The question of nuclear weapons is not whether you can use them on civilians or soldiers. It is whether you can use them at all during war... Just because you are in international waters, doesn't mean that the nuclear weapons will be any less lethal or cruel to the soldiers.

4. You are just wrong... (yes it will make them more efficient - that is why all weapons of mass ordinance are detonated in the air, so that the ground doesn't absorb the force). Detonating a nuclear weapon in the air will cause the fall out to be greater than if you were to detonate it on the ground. Less of it would be absorbed by surronding natural structures (i.e. the ground! mountains, etc), and it would be able to spread across longer distances. Cleaner nuclear weapons?!?

6. This statement is flat out stupefying

7. Why ban some weapons of mass destruction and not others? Mass death is mass death, no matter the means.

8. If WMDs are meant to be deterrants only, then why should you be allowed to use them? And if they are meant to be deterrants only, there would be no point in having them if you couldn't use them. What good is a threat you can't make good on. Why would you need to horde anthrax if you forbidden from every using it.

9. This whole discussion is getting ridiculous. Either we allow people to have weapons of mass destruction without restriction or we don't allow them to have them at all. Using them in war is past laws, rules, and regulations - it goes against morals, ethics, and unwritten code.

"Well, mi amigos, how about we keep this simple and limit it to one strand of conversation. I belive that this civilian approach is useless, but as to tactical nuclear devices, used defencively and offencively.

"I want you all to understand, also, that offencively also means in the middle of a war to blow up an advancing army, and not just striking cities."

9: You are most probibly right. As we all (to my knowladge) agree on the allowance os stockpilig, manufacture, and development of nuclear wepaons (as well as all other types of WMDs). This issue is probibly bes set by countries stating what thier own offical doctrine is as is what nations feel about nuclear power.

This leaves only non-lethal chemical wepaons (eg CS), and non-chemical weapons that are weapons and chemicals (eg WP).

Incendary devices and smokes that do not have a primary use as chemical weapon should be allowed to be used (Naplm and White Phosporus are the most well known).

non-lethal chemical wepaons such as CS (tear gas) and OC (peper spray) are safe enoughf and all other riot control gasses (CS being one) have been far more dangerious for thier intended effect. OC is also fairly safe as a grenade filler when used in conjuction with CS and these give troops an effective weapon to use agenst targets that they would not like to kill (like civilians that formed a mob; for political reasons).

"Obviously... nobody is talking about banning tear gas or pepper spray. They are not considered weapons of mass destruction - which is what this conversation is about."

OOC: In RL teargas and perperspray are considered chemical weapons and are baned in use in war.

ooc: I don't think anybody cares about pepper spray and tear gas being used in war, in NS. So...

IC:

"It is becoming more and more apparent to me that we are going to be unable to reach any type of deal on these issues," The Supreme Ruler said as he sat down.

ooc2: This is dying and I feel like wrapping it up for good, meaning no more portshire conventions (though it was nice while it lasted).

Well it seems we all agree on what you said
"Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Allowed to maintain and storehouse.
Strategic Nuclear Weapons: Allowed to maintain and storehouse.
Non-Lethal Chemical Weapons: Allowed to maintain and storehouse.
Lethal Chemical Weapons: Allowed to maintain and storehouse.
Biological Weapons: Allowed to maintain and storehouse.
Space Weapons: Allowed to maintain and storehouse.
Strategic Missile Defense: Allowed to maintain and storehouse."
except for my concern for space weapons but my nation sees the inevatility of that so why not put this in. In a way it should show how we dont support activist nations that try to stop other nations from developing a strategic or tatical deturent.

"I agree with the delegate of Potty 5 on all points except lethal chemical weapons, strategic nuclear weapons and biological weapons." said Leong

"I support Leong's position." added the Prime Minister.

how can you be for allowing the maintaining and storehousing of tatical nuclear weapons but not strategic? With few exceptions (cobalt nuclear bombs) a tack and strat nucke are the same. The only diferance is the target... but for the sake of coming to a unanimous agrement I propose

'Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Allowed to maintain and storehouse
Non-Lethal Chemical Weapons: Allowed to maintain and storehouse
Strategic Missile Defense: Allowed to maintain and storehouse'

As for Strategic Nuclear Weapons, Lethal Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons, and Space Weapons in terms of maintaining and storehousing it should not be mentioned. Also acceptable use of such devices, including Tactical Nuclear Weapons, and the two other mentioned the allowable use and deployment should not be mentioned. Or is this to weak... I think better then nothing.

"Seeing as the delegate of Potty 5 has uttered the same argument and position that I have, I completely agree with him and support him," The Supreme Ruler said as he grew restless.

"So... are we in agreement on this matter?" the Supreme Ruler asked.

ooc: the conventions are dying. I propose that this is the last topic discussed and last portshire convention called.

OOC: This IS the last of the Portshire Convention trilogy.

IC:
"Because strategic nuclear weapons are often overkill?"

ooc: okay, I just feel like we should end it as not many people are involved and I am losing interest - fast.
IC:

"I hardly see how strategic nuclear weapons are overkill. In fact I don't think you can use the word overkill in a discussion about weapons of mass destruction unless you label them all 'overkill'."

OOC: Yeah, I guess me moving killed it. A good idea gone dead, I guess? Anyways, this is the last one, but lets make it count. I just got back from a concert tonight so I have little time to catch myself up.

IC:

"Well, we have seemed to come to a compromise. Stockpiling and holding stores of nuclear, chemical, and biological arms is permitted, hands down, and the use of chemical and biological agents are to be used in small quantities and in such we have agreed in detail.

"Now, this nuclear issue. It seems we should not discuss Ortillery, or space-based weapons, as that is too hot of an issue and most would ignore it, but with nuclear arms everyone seems to agree with tactical arms, but the strategic aspect is a bit etchy. Anyone mind starting a propossal to clear up any tape that may exist?"

The use of biological weapons can not be permited under this. What if the convention just did not say anything about the use of biological weapons, but said that the development and creation of such weapons is with a nations rights.

"The discussion on weapons of mass destruction is a complicated and confusing one with no real agreeable outcome. If you decide to ban the storehousing and use of all weapons of mass destruction, nobody will agree to it and nor should they - Also all nations that are not adhering to the agreement will be able to possess them and will have the upper hand in battle. If you say that all weapons of mass destruction can be storehoused and used, then there is no real point of making an agreement that says so, because it is the same as not passing any judgement on them. Finally if you allow the creation and storehouse of them but not the use... well then there is no reason to create and storehouse them in the first place and thus not everyone will agree to it. If we agree that weapons of mass destruction are supposed to be used a deterence, then saying that they can not be used effectively rids of them of any power they might have. A threat without being able to back it up is not a threat or deterence at all...

That is why I propose that we drop this issue and adjourn to our respective nations."

"Very well. I shall respect your views, as rule of the majority, reigns supreme."

Well put DMG

"Ah well, it seems this meeting shall be adjurned then. I shall compose a write up of everything we have agreed upon during the past two meetings and send it all via telegram within the week, to give you all time to unpack and get settled back at your homes." Said the Chancellor standing up, ready to shake anyone's hand.

OOC: Well, this was a waste...

I'll go back through the past couple pages of the past meetings, and probably with Phoenixius' help, write up a formal document.

ooc: lol. Okay, so is this over now?

OOC: Yeah, I guess so? First two kicked butt, but I think I killed this one with my moving. I just got back from picking my grandparents up from Virginia (Go VT!) and will be typing up the bits and pieces of what we agreed on throughout today and tomorrow in bits since I will be busy with Christmas stuff.

Hope you guys enjoyed the last two!

ooc1: Yeh I enjoyed the last two.
ooc2: I wasn't sure we agreed on anything...

OOC:I did