NationStates

Bergnovinaia wrote:

New Xania wrote:What this proposal means is this.
1. Ban bio-weapons.
2. increase funding for nuclear and chemical weapons projects.

Overall effect: None as what we end up with in nuclear and chemical weapons should make up for the loss of valuable bio-weapons.

True. That's right on becuase bio-weapons are really unecessary in warfare.

New Xania wrote:

Bergnovinaia wrote:

New Xania wrote:What this proposal means is this.
1. Ban bio-weapons.
2. increase funding for nuclear and chemical weapons projects.

Overall effect: None as what we end up with in nuclear and chemical weapons should make up for the loss of valuable bio-weapons.

True. That's right on becuase bio-weapons are really unecessary in warfare.

So we could maintain the same bodycount, we just have to use other methods.

2. CALLS FOR these weapons be disarmed in the safest way possible in order to protect the environment and citizens lives.

5.ALLOWS member nations to use such agents for peaceful purposes, either nationally or internationally, which includes and does not exclude, experimentation and implementations for vaccinations and other preventative treatments, testing for decontamination purposes, or other peaceful purposes. However, appropriate and effective measures are taken with regard to safety and security.

Glomeland wrote:The Republic of Glomeland supports this proposal and I apologize for not having taken part in the earlier drafting discussions.

Looking at the text of the submitted resolution, I see two minor grammatical errors. These do not change the meaning of the articles they are contained in, but should this fail to reach quorum it would be good if they were corrected.

2. CALLS FOR these weapons be disarmed in the safest way possible in order to protect the environment and citizens lives.

Should read "weapons to be".

5.ALLOWS member nations to use such agents for peaceful purposes, either nationally or internationally, which includes and does not exclude, experimentation and implementations for vaccinations and other preventative treatments, testing for decontamination purposes, or other peaceful purposes. However, appropriate and effective measures are taken with regard to safety and security.

In this clause I believe you meant "appropriate and effective measures must be taken".

Thanks. I'm not great at grammar on the computer.

Eyðvør Eilifsdóttir
World Assembly Ambassador
The Republic of Glomeland

Bergnovinaia wrote:

New Xania wrote:

Bergnovinaia wrote:

New Xania wrote:What this proposal means is this.
1. Ban bio-weapons.
2. increase funding for nuclear and chemical weapons projects.

Overall effect: None as what we end up with in nuclear and chemical weapons should make up for the loss of valuable bio-weapons.

True. That's right on becuase bio-weapons are really unecessary in warfare.

So we could maintain the same bodycount, we just have to use other methods.

True i guess.

New Xania wrote:So then why ban bioweapons if the people are only going to die a different way? As Gears of War 2 teaches us, variety is the spice of death.

Krioval wrote:

New Xania wrote:So then why ban bioweapons if the people are only going to die a different way? As Gears of War 2 teaches us, variety is the spice of death.

If I may intercede here, the goal is to minimize the spread of contagions that might affect civilians in the belligerent nations, as well as the civilians and militaries of neutral nations. Further, another goal is to minimize the amount of unnecessary suffering caused by neuroactive chemical agents whose primary method of action is to destroy neural function, causing slow, painful deaths, or in the survivors, severe neurological damage. Conventional armaments are lethal, to be sure, but the objectives in most wars is not to destroy a population, but to either prevent a nation from threatening another nation, or to invade and conquer territory. Bombs and the like are better at destroying factories, command centers, and communications centers while not causing indiscriminate loss of life, especially among civilians.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

Glomeland wrote:The Republic of Glomeland supports this proposal and I apologize for not having taken part in the earlier drafting discussions.

Looking at the text of the submitted resolution, I see two minor grammatical errors. These do not change the meaning of the articles they are contained in, but should this fail to reach quorum it would be good if they were corrected.

2. CALLS FOR these weapons be disarmed in the safest way possible in order to protect the environment and citizens lives.

Should read "weapons to be".

5.ALLOWS member nations to use such agents for peaceful purposes, either nationally or internationally, which includes and does not exclude, experimentation and implementations for vaccinations and other preventative treatments, testing for decontamination purposes, or other peaceful purposes. However, appropriate and effective measures are taken with regard to safety and security.

In this clause I believe you meant "appropriate and effective measures must be taken".

Eyðvør Eilifsdóttir
World Assembly Ambassador
The Republic of Glomeland

Krioval wrote:

New Xania wrote:So then why ban bioweapons if the people are only going to die a different way? As Gears of War 2 teaches us, variety is the spice of death.

If I may intercede here, the goal is to minimize the spread of contagions that might affect civilians in the belligerent nations, as well as the civilians and militaries of neutral nations. Further, another goal is to minimize the amount of unnecessary suffering caused by neuroactive chemical agents whose primary method of action is to destroy neural function, causing slow, painful deaths, or in the survivors, severe neurological damage. Conventional armaments are lethal, to be sure, but the objectives in most wars is not to destroy a population, but to either prevent a nation from threatening another nation, or to invade and conquer territory. Bombs and the like are better at destroying factories, command centers, and communications centers while not causing indiscriminate loss of life, especially among civilians.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

New Xania wrote:What about when you intentionally target civilians as a way of weakening the enemy country? Few civilians = few workers and potential soldiers.

Krioval wrote:

New Xania wrote:What about when you intentionally target civilians as a way of weakening the enemy country? Few civilians = few workers and potential soldiers.

Really, Your Excellency, who does this? I can hardly believe that targeting civilian populations would be more efficacious than destroying industrial centers and disrupting communication among an enemy's armed forces. Even if a nation is so depraved as to directly massacre an enemy nation's civilian population, they can do so without needing to use biological weapons and risk killing off neutrals.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

New Xania wrote:What neutrals? Instead of simply dropping a bio bomb in a major city I have to carpet bomb it? That is so much more expensive for the same results. Even just shooting the people on the ground is pricier then one bomb. Part of destroying an enemies industrial capability is destroying its workers. Besides, the more of the people who are killed the slower they're population regrows meaning it takes longer before the nation will have the numbers to be a threat again.

Krioval wrote:

New Xania wrote:What neutrals? Instead of simply dropping a bio bomb in a major city I have to carpet bomb it? That is so much more expensive for the same results. Even just shooting the people on the ground is pricier then one bomb. Part of destroying an enemies industrial capability is destroying its workers. Besides, the more of the people who are killed the slower they're population regrows meaning it takes longer before the nation will have the numbers to be a threat again.

Biological weapons can spread infectious agents, Your Excellency. Of course, when a nation laments the financial expense of mass killings, it is small wonder that they would not worry about collateral damage to neutral nations. Also, Your Excellency appears to be devoid of any decency regarding the proper conduct of military forces during wartime, so the Great Chiefdom must reflect on whether continuing our conversation will benefit this debate any further.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

New Xania wrote:

Krioval wrote:

New Xania wrote:What neutrals? Instead of simply dropping a bio bomb in a major city I have to carpet bomb it? That is so much more expensive for the same results. Even just shooting the people on the ground is pricier then one bomb. Part of destroying an enemies industrial capability is destroying its workers. Besides, the more of the people who are killed the slower they're population regrows meaning it takes longer before the nation will have the numbers to be a threat again.

Biological weapons can spread infectious agents, Your Excellency. Of course, when a nation laments the financial expense of mass killings, it is small wonder that they would not worry about collateral damage to neutral nations. Also, Your Excellency appears to be devoid of any decency regarding the proper conduct of military forces during wartime, so the Great Chiefdom must reflect on whether continuing our conversation will benefit this debate any further.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

Sir I never attack with such tactics when I have not been attacked first so nations wishing to avoid such horrific treatment need simply not attempt to invade New Xania. Besides, if we prevent a war by having these policies in place have we not done the world a favor? As far as decency goes war is by it's very nature inhumane so I do all I can to end it faster. Anything that drops the enemies will to fight is fair game. So with that perhaps it is your soldiers who do not display the proper conduct during wartime.

Malikov wrote:OOC: After many times, and it still hasn't reached quorum. Plus, the nations of the WA don't like things that take away from their military capabilites, which is what this does. In short... I TOLD YOU SO...AGAIN!

Malikov wrote:OOC: Maybe, but the nations of the WA won't vote for it, due to the aforementioned reasons. So, again... I TOLD YOU SO!
(stop me at any time)

Malikov wrote:Because they were young and foolish, not realizing the dangers of a defensless WA nation. Also, I think that a lot of people left the WA before it passed, and then rejoined.