[PASSED] Chemical Weapons Protocol

[Araraukar]

No and definitely NO, Chemical weapons should not be used by any country or even for the matter not even Nuclear.

And in what universe would that ever pass through the WA?

Presumably the one where Astana exists.

[Chester Pearson]

Submitted for a test run to gauge support.

Warmest regards,

[Republic of Astana]

And in what universe would that ever pass through the WA?

Presumably the one where Astana exists.

Can you tell me what is the purpose of chemical weapons?

[Imperializt Russia]

Presumably the one where Astana exists.

Can you tell me what is the purpose of chemical weapons?

Attacking, engaging, delaying and inconveniencing an approaching enemy force.

Deploying chemical weapons against an opponent will drastically impede their combat capabilities, the sortie rate of aircraft, the length of time armoured vehicles can operate on the line for and will seriously overwork their chemical weapon defence elements.

Since landmines are currently banned by WA legislature, chemical weapons are the most effective non-nuclear method of delaying and denying area to aggressor forces.

[Republic of Astana]

Can you tell me what is the purpose of chemical weapons?

Attacking, engaging, delaying and inconveniencing an approaching enemy force.

Deploying chemical weapons against an opponent will drastically impede their combat capabilities, the sortie rate of aircraft, the length of time armoured vehicles can operate on the line for and will seriously overwork their chemical weapon defence elements.

Since landmines are currently banned by WA legislature, chemical weapons are the most effective non-nuclear method of delaying and denying area to aggressor forces.

I know but i mean Chemical weapons and Nuclear weapons are bad they just destroy everyone not just the enemy, plus its very worst way to die even to enemy's.

[Imperializt Russia]

Attacking, engaging, delaying and inconveniencing an approaching enemy force.

Deploying chemical weapons against an opponent will drastically impede their combat capabilities, the sortie rate of aircraft, the length of time armoured vehicles can operate on the line for and will seriously overwork their chemical weapon defence elements.

Since landmines are currently banned by WA legislature, chemical weapons are the most effective non-nuclear method of delaying and denying area to aggressor forces.

I know but i mean Chemical weapons and Nuclear weapons are bad they just destroy everyone not just the enemy, plus its very worst way to die even to enemy's.

You can apply this "argument" to almost any weapon.
Hence why it's not a viable argument.

[Athenoi]

"Hasn't the WA already attempted this sort of protocol?" Athenian Ambassador Damianos asks. "I know there are so many ways you change a law, but how long until it is impotent?"

[Imperializt Russia]

"Hasn't the WA already attempted this sort of protocol?" Athenian Ambassador Damianos asks. "I know there are so many ways you change a law, but how long until it is impotent?"

Because now there's perfectly reasonable compromise in play.

[Republic of Astana]

I know but i mean Chemical weapons and Nuclear weapons are bad they just destroy everyone not just the enemy, plus its very worst way to die even to enemy's.

You can apply this "argument" to almost any weapon.
Hence why it's not a viable argument.

Which kills worse Chemical or a M4?

[Imperializt Russia]

You can apply this "argument" to almost any weapon.
Hence why it's not a viable argument.

Which kills worse Chemical or a M4?

The chemical agent.
That's why forces issue protective gear and have chemical defence units within their formations.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

You can apply this "argument" to almost any weapon.
Hence why it's not a viable argument.

Which kills worse Chemical or a M4?

The question is not which is worse, the question is: Do you really wish to know what a fragmenting 5.56x45 mm bullet does to your intestines?
And at the Battle of Aspern-Essling, Maréchal Jean Lannes had both his knees destroyed by a three-pound roundshot, his legs had to be sawn off without anaesthetic, or in more euphemistic terms amputated, and he suffered for eight days before dying. If we are comparing which weapon is the worst ever, or what I term the utmost exercise in futility, then you're welcome.

[Republic of Astana]

Which kills worse Chemical or a M4?

The question is not which is worse, the question is: Do you really wish to know what a fragmenting 5.56x45 mm bullet does to your intestines?
And at the Battle of Aspern-Essling, Maréchal Jean Lannes had both his knees destroyed by a three-pound roundshot, his legs had to be sawn off without anaesthetic, or in more euphemistic terms amputated, and he suffered for eight days before dying. If we are comparing which weapon is the worst ever, or what I term the utmost exercise in futility, then you're welcome.

I would be happy to show you what does Chemical Agents do to human body and how long some of them take to kill a person.

[Imperializt Russia]

The question is not which is worse, the question is: Do you really wish to know what a fragmenting 5.56x45 mm bullet does to your intestines?
And at the Battle of Aspern-Essling, Maréchal Jean Lannes had both his knees destroyed by a three-pound roundshot, his legs had to be sawn off without anaesthetic, or in more euphemistic terms amputated, and he suffered for eight days before dying. If we are comparing which weapon is the worst ever, or what I term the utmost exercise in futility, then you're welcome.

I would be happy to show you what does Chemical Agents do to human body and how long some of them take to kill a person.

It's not like we're particularly glossing over the fact that they are very powerful and at times horrific weapons.
We fully accept that, but firmly believe that such weapons have a definite place in warfare - a place that has been recognised adequately with the compromises of this proposal.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The question is not which is worse, the question is: Do you really wish to know what a fragmenting 5.56x45 mm bullet does to your intestines?
And at the Battle of Aspern-Essling, Maréchal Jean Lannes had both his knees destroyed by a three-pound roundshot, his legs had to be sawn off without anaesthetic, or in more euphemistic terms amputated, and he suffered for eight days before dying. If we are comparing which weapon is the worst ever, or what I term the utmost exercise in futility, then you're welcome.

I would be happy to show you what does Chemical Agents do to human body and how long some of them take to kill a person.

So... what part of fūtilia did we not get across here?

[Republic of Astana]

I would be happy to show you what does Chemical Agents do to human body and how long some of them take to kill a person.

It's not like we're particularly glossing over the fact that they are very powerful and at times horrific weapons.
We fully accept that, but firmly believe that such weapons have a definite place in warfare - a place that has been recognised adequately with the compromises of this proposal.

Maybe, but i still well never agree with it, anyway the decision is to the most.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's not like we're particularly glossing over the fact that they are very powerful and at times horrific weapons.
We fully accept that, but firmly believe that such weapons have a definite place in warfare - a place that has been recognised adequately with the compromises of this proposal.

Maybe, but i still well never agree with it, anyway the decision is to the most.

This proposal in its current form has two outcomes.
Either it passes, and it restricts the use of chemical weapons to defensive use against an aggressor force (or in retaliation to use of chemical weapons) and prohibits the targeting of civilians;
Or it fails to pass, and chemical warfare remains unregulated. It'll either fail because people will remain ideologically opposed to any infringement on their ability to bring chemical arms to bear - or because people fail to read the resolution and mistake it for another outright ban, which it is not by any means.

Regardless, those of us that are chemical warfare proponents "win".
I'd be remiss to see a good chance of codifying a decent and permissive rules of engagement go down, but at the same time be glad that a critical quality of my nation's defence remains legal. Of course, if it passes, my use of chemical weapons as a defensive deterrent will, better still, be legitimised by the WA. I actually win more if this passes.

[Separatist Peoples]

It's not like we're particularly glossing over the fact that they are very powerful and at times horrific weapons.
We fully accept that, but firmly believe that such weapons have a definite place in warfare - a place that has been recognised adequately with the compromises of this proposal.

Maybe, but i still well never agree with it, anyway the decision is to the most.

Then you are welcome not to use them. Many, if not most, of us are perfectly willing to use a horrific weapon to achieve a critical strategy, especially in defense of our nations.

[Freemopia]

It’s not illegal to have chem weapons or wmds. It doesn’t matter the means, it matters the ends when it comes to abuse. Killing/injuring someone w nerve gas vs. shooting/bombing them are both about equally painful and severe.
Nukes release radiation, tiny particles of metal (metallic dust) and potentially du, all causes similar results as sarin. besides that nukes kill and injure many. its contradictory to ban chem weapons and not nukes.
powerful nuclear countries who have chem weapons (all countries have chem weapons) team up to try to de-wmd, or de-chem weapon weak countries are trying to overpower them, its not about de-chem weaponing the world if they wanted to de-chem weapon the world they would start with de-chem weaponing themselves then they would try to persuade powerful countries to de-chem weapon.
Powerful groups/countries who want to steal chemical stockpiles from weaker countries to keep for themselves to threaten to use and potentially use, is only about power not public safety.

[Imperializt Russia]

nukes release radiation, tiny particles of metal(metalic dust)and potentially du, all causes similar results as serin, besides that nukes kill and injure many, its contradictory to ban one and not the other.

There are a number of things either wrong or confused about your statement.

Would you mind awfully reiterating your points?

[Araraukar]

Can you tell me what is the purpose of chemical weapons?

Hey, I'm against them. Or, at least, if landmines and bioweapons are banned, so should chemical (and nuclear) ones.

[Imperializt Russia]

I support the banning of biological weapons because I believe it has no viable use in warfare. Chemical weapons do what it aims to do faster, more reliably, more simply and more controllably.

Chemicals, nuclear devices (including radiological weapons) and landmines all have viable and important roles in strategic defence against a large enemy force.

[Friday Freshman]

I think that in times of war a nation should have the right to use Sarin

[Friday Freshman]

Presumably the one where Astana exists.

Can you tell me what is the purpose of chemical weapons?

The purpose of chemical weapons is to kill people. And they are damn good efficient at it.

[Athenoi]

I think that in times of war a nation should have the right to use Sarin

"We agree." Damianos says "If an enemy is using overwhelming force, Sarin, or any other agent can be used to level the playing field. The morality of it is low, but the legality must be held. Options must always be available for a nation's security."

[Abacathea]

I think that in times of war a nation should have the right to use Sarin

"We agree." Damianos says "If an enemy is using overwhelming force, Sarin, or any other agent can be used to level the playing field. The morality of it is low, but the legality must be held. Options must always be available for a nation's security."

I disagree. The brutality of another nation shouldn't justify the lowering of moral standards. I cannot conceive of a more horrible fact than one where all we contemplate is how to build a better killing machine.