[PASSED] Chemical Weapons Accord

[Yumeiyo]

At last a resolution that restricts the use of these horrible weapons! Good job Chester Pearson

[Confederacy of Ehud]

*Looking over, with a shocked expression.*

If I may clairify, I did not intend the simple use of chemical weapons for defence but, for offence...I was referring to the use of them to defuse a hostile element (Nation) in the hopes of a quick surrender or lose of will in troops. A "terror" tactic if you will.

I may have only joined this council of sorts hours ago, however I assure you my intentions are for the safety of my people. I would not support genocide in an-...*Begins sweating* err. Further comment is not possible.

You tried to trick me Savage, I know your ways. I will vote for this action for I know you would use it against my free land, if you got the chance that is.

*Grabs a pen and begins writing things down on a notepad.*


Chemical weapons are cruel and cowardly anyways, you won't see me using them any time soon.

[Slorch]

another one? again?... how may have there been...

[Brikiania]

Brikiania is forced to wonder why any nation in their right mind would use a chemical weapon defensively? This implies that an attack on them has been mounted either close to or within said defending nation's borders, therefore, the deployment of chemical weapons would lead to the destruction of that nation's own territory. If said nation was to use chemical weapons in a counterattack on the aggressor, many civilians would be put at dreadful risk. Brikiania will NOT support this resolution.

As a sidenote, Brikiania would be interested in a resolution dealing with the encouraged proliferation of "clean" weapons for defensive use. Such weapons would prove much more effective and humane as a defensive deterrent against aggression.

Civilians would not be put at risk, because a situation in which civilians would be at risk would prevent the legal authority to use chemical agents defensively.

Further, chemical agents destroy, strictly, nothing.

Would you be willing to divulge what you believe to constitute a "clean" weapon, that offers similar or greater capability than chemical agents?

Chemical agents destroy the productivity of a landscape by soaking the environment in dangerous chemicals that are quite a hassle to clean up. In order for a nation to use such an environmentally destructive weapon defensively, as in defending against invasion, the nation will be deploying these environment-destroying chemicals in their own territory.

I'd "defensively" means in a counterattack, the only reasonable time to use chemical weapons, then really isn't defense at all. When the aggressor has been defeated, surrender is brought about through negotiation, an aggressive counterattack is barbarian.

A clean weapon, by the Brikianian Encyclopedia's definition, is a weapon which leaves abundant harmful residue after it's use. Conventional warheads would be tactically effective in defense due to their precision, and run a lower risk of collateral damage.

[Republic Arcadia]

This suggestion suffers of two fatal flaws:
1) The word "solely".
According to this act, I may drop a huge bomb at my enemies which in the mean time disperses a huge amount of toxic gas as well, and it wouldn't be guilty because the device did not cause harm solely through the toxic chemical properties.
2) Lack of definition of "defensive" purpose.
You wouldn't be guilty under this accord if you would make a preemptive strike with chemical weapons.

Therefor Republic Arcadia votes against the proposal.

[Confederacy of Ehud]

After discussing the matter privately with the nation of Savage-Borg.

I change my vote again, to against.

My reasons are as follows:
1.The entire thing is worded secretly and suspiciously.
2. If my region truly needs it, I'm all for it.
3. Savages point of long drawn out battles.

[Imperializt Russia]

Civilians would not be put at risk, because a situation in which civilians would be at risk would prevent the legal authority to use chemical agents defensively.

Further, chemical agents destroy, strictly, nothing.

Would you be willing to divulge what you believe to constitute a "clean" weapon, that offers similar or greater capability than chemical agents?

Chemical agents destroy the productivity of a landscape by soaking the environment in dangerous chemicals that are quite a hassle to clean up. In order for a nation to use such an environmentally destructive weapon defensively, as in defending against invasion, the nation will be deploying these environment-destroying chemicals in their own territory.

I'd "defensively" means in a counterattack, the only reasonable time to use chemical weapons, then really isn't defense at all. When the aggressor has been defeated, surrender is brought about through negotiation, an aggressive counterattack is barbarian.

A clean weapon, by the Brikianian Encyclopedia's definition, is a weapon which leaves abundant harmful residue after it's use. Conventional warheads would be tactically effective in defense due to their precision, and run a lower risk of collateral damage.

...
Why are you suggesting that an enemy force would only be gassed after they had surrendered?
Counterattack is one of many types of defensive operation.
Why do you believe counterattack to be the only "reasonable" stage in which to deploy chemical munitions?

Conventional munitions are neither clean nor long-term safe. Nor do they offer anything over... conventional munitions.
Which is the point of having chemical munitions, well done for letting that one sail over your head.

[Imperializt Russia]

This suggestion suffers of two fatal flaws:
1) The word "solely".
According to this act, I may drop a huge bomb at my enemies which in the mean time disperses a huge amount of toxic gas as well, and it wouldn't be guilty because the device did not cause harm solely through the toxic chemical properties.
2) Lack of definition of "defensive" purpose.
You wouldn't be guilty under this accord if you would make a preemptive strike with chemical weapons.

Therefor Republic Arcadia votes against the proposal.

...
You have used a weapon to deploy a toxic agent.

Which is deploying a chemical weapon.

What mad loophole are you unsuccessfully trying to exploit?

[Jacobios]

OFFICE OF PRIME MINISTER
The Right Honourable Jacob Jones MP

The Prime Minister wishes to show his support for this bill in a step towards peace worldwide. He recognises that it is the right of nations to maintain a chemical weapons stockpile should they wish but is against their use on humanitarian grounds. Believing that this legislation will bring about regulation to prevent their use, Jacobios issues a YAY to this proposal.

[Brikiania]

Chemical agents destroy the productivity of a landscape by soaking the environment in dangerous chemicals that are quite a hassle to clean up. In order for a nation to use such an environmentally destructive weapon defensively, as in defending against invasion, the nation will be deploying these environment-destroying chemicals in their own territory.

I'd "defensively" means in a counterattack, the only reasonable time to use chemical weapons, then really isn't defense at all. When the aggressor has been defeated, surrender is brought about through negotiation, an aggressive counterattack is barbarian.

A clean weapon, by the Brikianian Encyclopedia's definition, is a weapon which leaves abundant harmful residue after it's use. Conventional warheads would be tactically effective in defense due to their precision, and run a lower risk of collateral damage.

...
Why are you suggesting that an enemy force would only be gassed after they had surrendered?
Counterattack is one of many types of defensive operation.
Why do you believe counterattack to be the only "reasonable" stage in which to deploy chemical munitions?

Conventional munitions are neither clean nor long-term safe. Nor do they offer anything over... conventional munitions.
Which is the point of having chemical munitions, well done for letting that one sail over your head.

No need for personal blows or sarcasm, please remember that this is a civilized debate.

After an attack has been defeated, you negotiate for peace with the defending nation. If you launch a campaign ti counterattack and invade them after their invasion has been rebutted, you have become the conqueror and them the victim.

The "defensive" part of a war is the part in which a nation aims to prevent an aggressor from invading it's sovereign territory. During this time, any chemical weapons launched would be detonated on the very soil you are trying to defend, saturating the land with hazardous chemicals that will render it useless for years.

A conventional explosive that just goes "boom" and is used in precision strikes is far less "dirty" than a weapon that throws chemicals everywhere upon detonation. I think this is obvious.

No matter what your stance is on conventional explosives is, however, the proposal at hand should not be supported.

[Imperializt Russia]

You seem to have a rather limited understanding of how a war works.
A counterattack is an attack that is conducted offensively to halt an enemy force's momentum as they make offensive pushes.

It is not limited to the strategic level, as you seem to believe. Nor is it limited to only applying after the cessation of conflict. In fact, in such a situation, that wouldn't even be a counterattack. That would simply be a declaration of war. It didn't work out for Iraq in the late 80s.

Conventional munitions may not be sufficient. Hence why there is even a discussion on the use of chemical weapons.

[Drummers (Ancient)]

I do not agree with this because if you use chemical weapons for defense then you will be killing people in your own nation. Also even though chemical weapons are "bad" i believe they can be very useful, when used correctly and not against civilians.

[Imperializt Russia]

People usually do die when you fight a defensive war on your own soil.
Traditionally, they're referred to as "enemy forces".

[Qvait]

This is not to boost, it's to limit! Shame on you! You used a different category to deceive people.

[Mosktopia]

People usually do die when you fight a defensive war on your own soil.
Traditionally, they're referred to as "enemy forces".

Actually, the defensive side in war generally suffers the greatest casualties. That should be pretty obvious: if you're fighting a war on your own soil, odds are (1) you're losing, and (2) it's your civilians getting killed, not the enemy's.

US Military dead in Vietnam War: ~60,000
Vietcong military dead in Vietnam War: 444,000-1,100,000
Vietnamese civilians dead in Vietnam War: 245,000-500,000
US civilians dead in Vietnam War: 0

[Nitroxia]

The Galactic Empire of Nitroxia agrees with Brikiania, and further notes that all chemical weapons are a barbaric form of warfare. We vote no against this resolution.

[Imperializt Russia]

People usually do die when you fight a defensive war on your own soil.
Traditionally, they're referred to as "enemy forces".

Actually, the defensive side in war generally suffers the greatest casualties. That should be pretty obvious: if you're fighting a war on your own soil, odds are (1) you're losing, and (2) it's your civilians getting killed, not the enemy's.

US Military dead in Vietnam War: ~60,000
Vietcong military dead in Vietnam War: 444,000-1,100,000
Vietnamese civilians dead in Vietnam War: 245,000-500,000
US civilians dead in Vietnam War: 0

Not what I was getting at.

If you're using chemical agents against an aggressor on your soil, who is more likely to die as a result of that?
Your enemy.

[Belzia]

The Galactic Empire of Nitroxia agrees with Brikiania, and further notes that all chemical weapons are a barbaric form of warfare. We vote no against this resolution.

and conventional weapons are not barbaric?

[Nitroxia]

The Galactic Empire of Nitroxia agrees with Brikiania, and further notes that all chemical weapons are a barbaric form of warfare. We vote no against this resolution.

and conventional weapons are not barbaric?

Conventional weapons, when used properly, result in a quick death to the attacked. Chemical weapons cause a slow, painful, agonizing death. War is a sad necessity in the world, but chemical weapons are unnecessary and needlessly painful compared to other weapons on the modern battlefield.

[Imperializt Russia]

and conventional weapons are not barbaric?

Conventional weapons, when used properly, result in a quick death to the attacked. Chemical weapons cause a slow, painful, agonizing death. War is a sad necessity in the world, but chemical weapons are unnecessary and needlessly painful compared to other weapons on the modern battlefield.

And yet, chemical weapons are the only effective non-nuclear method of delaying forces and retarding their ability to fight, because someone decided landmines were evil and banned them.

So, we are at an impasse.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Conventional weapons, when used properly, result in a quick death to the attacked. Chemical weapons cause a slow, painful, agonizing death. War is a sad necessity in the world, but chemical weapons are unnecessary and needlessly painful compared to other weapons on the modern battlefield.

And yet, chemical weapons are the only effective non-nuclear method of delaying forces and retarding their ability to fight, because someone decided landmines were evil and banned them.

"I can't agree with that interpreptation: you're still perfectly entitled to use command-detonated landmines, as well as, more debatably, landmines that have a timer detonation."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Frankinstein]

Actually, the defensive side in war generally suffers the greatest casualties. That should be pretty obvious: if you're fighting a war on your own soil, odds are (1) you're losing, and (2) it's your civilians getting killed, not the enemy's.

US Military dead in Vietnam War: ~60,000
Vietcong military dead in Vietnam War: 444,000-1,100,000
Vietnamese civilians dead in Vietnam War: 245,000-500,000
US civilians dead in Vietnam War: 0

Not what I was getting at.

If you're using chemical agents against an aggressor on your soil, who is more likely to die as a result of that?
Your enemy.

Or, you know, your own people.

[Imperializt Russia]

Not what I was getting at.

If you're using chemical agents against an aggressor on your soil, who is more likely to die as a result of that?
Your enemy.

Or, you know, your own people.

And if you're thick enough to use chemical weapons near your own civilians, you completely deserve the enormous health catastrophe that will surely result.

[Nitroxia]

So, we are at an impasse.

What is wrong with using conventional weapons?

[Imperializt Russia]

So, we are at an impasse.

What is wrong with using conventional weapons?

Conventional weapons are what warfare is. It's why infantry, aircraft and armour alike are defended against conventional threats, and are equipped to defeat conventional protection.

Forces are often poorly prepared for chemical attack. Even if it sustains no casualties to chemical exposure, the sorties rates of its aircraft; the fire rates of its artillery; the mobility of its infantry; the wider defence of its armour; the speed at which operations can be planned and executed; medical evacuation - it all slows to a crawl. This, combined with a strategy of chemical-based area denial will allow a defending force to muster larger forces and organise a counterattack.

It taxes a forces capabilities, and severely.
Hence why I and others have pushed for the legal right to be able to use such weapons in defensive context.