Abazhaka wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"An what, pray tell, is an offensive weapon, exactly?"
any weapon not of a purely defensive or non lethal nature. a good example of defensive weapons would be stationary Anti Aircraft missile launchers, armor upgrades for vehicles, crowd control weapons, barbed wire, anti tank guns, shield generators (if such a thing exists), missile defense systems, unarmed UAV craft, radar, fortifications, and other things of this nature. where as bombers and tanks would be an example of offensive weapons. Also a degree of common sense is needed when determining the offensive or defensive nature of something.
The resolution permits transfer of arms to freedom fighters, states that are victims of aggression, and the like. So that's not a reason to vote against.
Your other concern is perplexing. What's the utility or gain to people's lives achieved by artificially cleaving an arbitrary line of definition between some things that kill people vs. other things that kill people? The pertinent factor, as always, is rather what are the goals of the actual recipients of armaments? Just because tear gas is non-lethal doesn't mean we'll sell it to just anyone; and if the recognized Free Frankish Army-In-Exile has need of tanks, why wouldn't we agree to supply them, assuming we had them to spare? This resolution is extremely careful not to step on legitimate purposes while still providing a reasonable precaution against abuse or diversion of arms sales. To the extent your concerns are not baseless, it's not truly realistic to tend to them.