[PASSED] Repeal: Biological Weapons Conference

[Herpusderpus]

Nice. Another repeal resolution where it is taken for granted that the interpreters and enforcers of the resolutions are retarded or deliberately want to misinterpret. How original. How about writing some new proposals instead of just repealing everything?

[Luthiland]

The Empire of Luthiland is in full support of this repeal. 3 indigent care hospitals and 1 factory are in the beginning stages of being converted for the production of Smallpox, Anthrax, and several other classified biological agents.

[Hittanryan]

I cannot support this repeal without having a replacement in the works. The use of biological weapons in modern warfare is not only reprehensible, but is largely ineffective against military targets. Incendiary, nuclear, and even certain chemical weapons can be used in a controllable fashion.

Biological agents, on the other hand, are not even immediately effective against modern military forces. In the case of highly infectious agents, such as smallpox and plague viruses, it is much more likely to first spread amongst civilian populations. Eventually, the agent may spread to the military as well, but civilians ultimately bear the brunt of biological attacks, the after-effects of which can linger for decades.

[Exodic]

Agreeing with some posts here, this repeal is ridiculous, at least whithout a similar alternative. Biological Weapons are comparatively inefecctive agains military targets: The main victims are ALWAYS civilians and the environment. It's use is therefore, repreensible to say the least.

AGAINST BIO WEAPONS

[Spykeny]

It's like the forum has been overtaken by conservatives, trying to repeal every resolution that improves the world. I strongly oppose repealing the current resolution.

[Bergnovinaia]

I cannot support this repeal without having a replacement in the works. The use of biological weapons in modern warfare is not only reprehensible, but is largely ineffective against military targets. Incendiary, nuclear, and even certain chemical weapons can be used in a controllable fashion.

Biological agents, on the other hand, are not even immediately effective against modern military forces. In the case of highly infectious agents, such as smallpox and plague viruses, it is much more likely to first spread amongst civilian populations. Eventually, the agent may spread to the military as well, but civilians ultimately bear the brunt of biological attacks, the after-effects of which can linger for decades.

There is a replacement in the works as we speak, ambassador, and a good one at that. As the original author, it has my blessing and full support.

[Maroza]

It's like the forum has been overtaken by conservatives, trying to repeal every resolution that improves the world. I strongly oppose repealing the current resolution.

No it's not. Conservatives want to keep things the same (Conserve if you will) so it is clear that we are under attack by liberals because to be liberal or liberate is the opposite of restricting rights.

[Free Pangea]

I am strongly against this proposal. Not only is it fatally flawed but biological weapons should not exist because of the damage they do to innocent people (innocents more than the government). For what you said about "it does not stop countries from using bio-weapons" I would like to see you try to fire a missile you can't even have.

[Technolotasia]

World Assembly:

The Republic of Technolotasia agrees that the Biological Weapons Conference is a hastily-written, ineffectual resolution lacking specificity. In order to ensure safety from biological weapons strong international cooperation is necessary. We must work together with allies in order to prevent proliferation and misuse of these devastating weapons.

However, repealing the BWC does not solve the issues contained within the BWC. The President of the Republic of Technolotasia feels that the total repeal of the biological weapons legal framework gives the international community absolutely no legal grounds to work within, and could possibly threaten our nation, our allies, and our interests.

We propose instead that the Biological Weapons Conference remain in place for the time being; in the meantime, a carefully written proposal to reform and perfect the BWC should be constructed and submitted.

Cordially,

Susan R. Dellano
Representative to the World Assembly

Jacob M. Bradford
Secretary of Foreign Affairs

[Technolotasia]

I cannot support this repeal without having a replacement in the works. The use of biological weapons in modern warfare is not only reprehensible, but is largely ineffective against military targets. Incendiary, nuclear, and even certain chemical weapons can be used in a controllable fashion.

Biological agents, on the other hand, are not even immediately effective against modern military forces. In the case of highly infectious agents, such as smallpox and plague viruses, it is much more likely to first spread amongst civilian populations. Eventually, the agent may spread to the military as well, but civilians ultimately bear the brunt of biological attacks, the after-effects of which can linger for decades.

There is a replacement in the works as we speak, ambassador, and a good one at that. As the original author, it has my blessing and full support.

Bergnovinaia:

The Republic of Technolotasia places her fulls support behind your draft. However, we feel that it is the best interest of the WA's member states to hold off on repeal of the BWC until the new proposal is firmly in place.

Secretary Bradford respectfully suggests adding a clause that abolishes the original BWC, so that as the new Convention goes into effect the old one is immediately phased out and there is no lapse in the international stance towards biological weapons.

Until that time, we will be forced to vote down this measure.

Cordially,

Susan R. Dellano
Representative to the World Assembly

[Flibbleites]

If Biological weapons are outlawed what will our children play with? Guns?

You let your children play with deadly viruses? Are you insane?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Unibot II]

Nice. Another repeal resolution where it is taken for granted that the interpreters and enforcers of the resolutions are retarded or deliberately want to misinterpret. How original. How about writing some new proposals instead of just repealing everything?

Agreed, actually. This is getting old very fast.

CONCERNED that the Biological Weapons Conference does not explicitly ban Member States from using biological weapons, except if a nation were to use them in response to being attacked with biological weapons;

.. it requires member-nations to "disarm their biological arsenal, never acquire or possess a biological weapon", now how can a nation deploy a biological weapon if it has never acquired nor possessed a biological weapon, and all of their biological weapons are disarmed? An answer to this obvious question in the repeal would have been nice, otherwise it appears as those Knoot was deceptively trying to capitalize on readers not actually reading the original resolution.

---

FINALLY OBSERVING that core concepts of the resolution such as "disarmament" (the objective of the resolution), "biological arsenal" (the intended target) and "other peaceful purposes" (an all purpose loophole) go entirely undefined as well;

The author probably thought some fellow with questionable intentions might come along and write a repeal that stretched the definitions of everything to ridculous, unreasonable or irrational lengths... oh wait...

OBSERVING that the definition of biological weapons in the 'Biological Weapons Conference' as "[any] infectious or biological agent of any kind that is intended to cause death, permanent illness, or injury" is very imprecise, and may include innocent substances, such as agents used for pest control and the protection of crops, as well as certain herbal remedies;

.. nevermind, it happened anyway. Reasonable Nation theory suggests that a nation wouldn't want to define the death of dandelions as equal to the death of human life, because the consequences that would follow from that decision would be self-destructive to the nation -- imagine every dandelion receiving a printed death certificate from the government, legislation created on the proper burial or disposal of dandelion 'corpses', emergency services sent to parks to resuscitate dandelions from iron poisoning using hydrotherapy, military deciding the first step in response to a recent hurricane is to protect the billions of dandelions in a city-park using sandbag fortification and airlifting whilst a rural area of thousands of people is drowned.... and ect. Also in the lawncare field, I just did my technician's examination today and I can assure you that weed control is referred to not as 'death' but destruction as death implies having a life, generally -- also the focus is usually on whether the development of a plant or vegetation is inhibited. A simple google check would have sufficed.

One quick point that Knoot seems to have overlooked is that there is a difference between a member-nation not being allowed to store these chemicals and toxins with the intention of weaponzing them (as per the definition of 'arsenal' if he had bothered to look it up instead of repealing first), and private companies being allowed to use these chemicals on people's lawns and whatnot, because what chemicals may be sold on the private market are not part of a member-nation's available arsenal, as the possession is neither public, nor national, nor consistent.

This repeal is apart of a dangerous trend in the World Assembly to repeal for inane reasons. Additionally, I suspect some AO-Dharma tension is behind this repeal, because this isn't the first time that Knoot has tried to repeal a Dharmarian-authored resolution with highly questionable justifications. OPPOSED!

[Knootoss]

OOC: I'm really happy that this reached quorum without any campaigning, and with only 1-2 hours left before the poll would have closed! Seeing the original author as well as a landslide of NS nations supporting this repeal is great too! It makes stirring up opposition on the grounds that I am somehow evil/plotting sound a little sore.

I'll be drafting my own replacement now, an alternative to the Glen-Rhodes draft.

[Bohrius]

I am strongly for this proposal. Nation states should be able to possess weapons of mass destruction solely for defensive purposes. It also should be noted that the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction states that countries with weapons of mass destruction would be far less likely to attack other nations with weapons of mass destruction, hence assuring world peace which the World Assembly is trying to maintain.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I think biological weapons should still be regulated so that the use of such doesn't result in fatal diseases which spread through the air. Ms. Harper wishes to see what Koopman can come up with in regards to the subject.

[Knootoss]

The draft of the replacement suggested by Knootoss can be found here. The replacement that has been proposed by Glen-Rhodes has already been brought to the attention of this assembly.

[Monikian WA Mission]

Voted for. As to replacement, I'll review the proposed replacements. Personally I don't think one is really necessary but if it inevitable I'd prefer one Sov-Friendly.

[Maroza]

I am strongly against this proposal. Not only is it fatally flawed but biological weapons should not exist because of the damage they do to innocent people (innocents more than the government). For what you said about "it does not stop countries from using bio-weapons" I would like to see you try to fire a missile you can't even have.

Several WA nations break resolutions because no one will stop them so some WA nations already have bio weapons that are ready for deployment.

[Vermmeria]

Aren't pesticides chemicals not biologicals?

[Hittanryan]

There is a replacement in the works as we speak, ambassador, and a good one at that. As the original author, it has my blessing and full support.

In that case we will support the new Biological Warfare Convention when it is put to a vote.

[Knootoss]

Even though your objection has been entirely removed, you still vote against the repeal? Fascinating stuff.

[Hittanryan]

Even though your objection has been entirely removed, you still vote against the repeal? Fascinating stuff.

Huh? I changed my vote.

[Knootoss]

Even though your objection has been entirely removed, you still vote against the repeal? Fascinating stuff.

Huh? I changed my vote.

OOC: Your nation page doesn't say so!

[Hittanryan]

Huh? I changed my vote.

OOC: Your nation page doesn't say so!

Uh...look again?

[Parti Ouvrier]

Even though your objection has been entirely removed, you still vote against the repeal? Fascinating stuff.

We favour Glen-Rhodes[Dr Castro's] proposal

CJ
WA Ambassador to the DRPO