[PASSED] Chemical Weapons Protocol

[Chester Pearson]

"Chemical Weapons Protocol"
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Chester Pearson

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that nations may possess chemical weapons,

Realizing that some nations use chemical weapons both domestically and in military conflict,

Whilst understanding the massive casualties and long term environmental damage that these weapons may cause; also believing that small scale tactical defensive usage of these weapons is sometimes vital to the survival of smaller nations,

For the purposes of this protocol:

• "Chemical agent" shall be defined as any substance that is capable of causing death or severe harm to a person, plant, animal, a habitable area or to the environment, primarily through its toxic chemical properties,
  
  
• "Riot control agent" shall be defined as any lachrymatory chemical substance that is designed to non-lethally incapacitate and subdue any conscious sentient person, plant or animal, primarily via the chemical effects of such agent,

The General Assembly hereby declares:

1. The use of chemical agents as weapons (hereafter referred to as chemical weapons) in any capacity that may injure or destroy military personnel, or the environment shall be limited to defensive or delaying operations of aggressive offensive forces,
   
   
2. The use of chemical weapons that have a reasonable probability of affecting civilian populations shall be prohibited,
   
   
3. Member nations shall be permitted to utilize riot control agents, within the boundaries of current and future World Assembly legislation,
   
   
4. Member nations shall take all measures necessary and practical in preventing the production, sale, or transfer of chemical weapons from their own nation to another party, if the transfer process is considered to violate the intentions and provisions of this protocol,
   
   
5. Member nations shall take all necessary, and available precautions to secure, and prevent their chemical weapon stockpiles from accidental release, or falling into the hands of individuals whom have the intent to violate the intentions and provisions of this protocol,
   
   
6. The World Assembly Chemical Weapons Commission (WACWC) shall be established, and be tasked with the following mandate:
   
   
   1. To develop and maintain a library of known chemical weapons, and to share this information with member nations,
      
      
   2. To assist member nations in establishing effective programs meant to defend against chemical weapons,
      
      
   3. To provide medical and humanitarian assistance to member nations subject to unprovoked offensive chemical weapon attacks, in cooperation with the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee.
7. Member nations shall be permitted to stockpile chemical agents, so long as they are in compliance with the provisions and intent of this protocol.

Alrighty..... Much was learned from the last attempt at this. This is now International Security/Mild, and no longer attempts to impose a full out ban, instead attempts to regulate usage.

As always..... Comments, questions, concerns, general Natsov bitches are always welcome.

Let us together put something together that pleases the masses, and controls these damn weapons.

[Separatist Peoples]

This...actually looks tolerable. The only point of contention I have is the one banning offensive use for the weaponry, but I feel we will have some key issues on that point. Honestly, I don't see the difference in using a chemical weapon defensively vs. offensively if you consider the rest of the proposal being in force. We could support legislation that provides for the protection of civilians from intentional or negligent targeting from weapons of any kind, as well as clauses ensuring the weapons are not transferred to parties that will do so.

However, we find the strategic use of chemical weapons in an offensive role, specifically against strategic hard points such as armored vehicle formations, or as supply line area-of-denial for military materiel or reinforcements, too valuable to accept an offensive ban.

Congratulations are in order, though. I doubt this will draw the same kind of rabid resistance as the last attempt did.

[Imperializt Russia]

I am leaning towards supporting this.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

While believing the massive casualties and long term environmental damage that these weapons cause;

Belief is not good enough, how about some proof about the long term environmental damage. Massive casualties? 4% of the total combat casualties in WW1 were caused by gas.

Overblown rhetoric.

[Imperializt Russia]

While believing the massive casualties and long term environmental damage that these weapons cause;

Belief is not good enough, how about some proof about the long term environmental damage. Massive casualties? 4% of the total combat casualties in WW1 were caused by gas.

Overblown rhetoric.

4% of the total combat casualties in WWI were of chemical weapons partly because artillery kills the most in almost any parity war and also because the chemical weapons used in WWI were dreadfully inefficient at producing fatalities. Chlorine, phosgene and mustard gases have to be inhaled in large quantities to be lethal, or otherwise allow for severe skin irritation. They could also be defeated without even using gas masks.

Which is partly why I feel that using WWI as an example of the horrors of chemical warfare isn't especially relevant. The weapons in question had little real control, cumbersome delivery and were only marginally effective, if effective at all.

Compared with a nerve gas attack that can be delivered by ballistic missile, artillery piece, aircraft and infantry mortar, we might as well be discussing different topics. Between three and five thousand were killed at Halabja. The town was practically wiped out. August's thousand-plus dead in the chemical attack in Ghouta managed to strike a fairly convincing population cross-section in its fatalities.

Some higher-grade nerve agents, such as VX or Novichok, were what are known as "persistent agents". Unlike Sarin, which decays within days or even hours, VX and especially Novichok can lay active on the ground for months or even indefinitely. It kills plant life as well, it's a toxic chemical spill.
VX requires full-body protection, as it can kill from pitifully low skin doses and can be absorbed (as low as 10mg absorbed through the skin). It is a liquid which can be deployed as an aerosol. It is described as having the consistency of motor oil and a very low volatility, which is supposed to be one of the reasons why it so persistent.
Novichok was purportedly designed to defeat full MOPP and conventional NBC protection and even be undetectable by conventional CRBN reconnaissance and testing methods, allowing Soviet forces in a prospective war in Europe to kill NATO troops by the million, whether on the battlefield itself, or even in their vehicles. It would also have been practically impossible to decontaminate, on account of being supposedly undetectable.

[Separatist Peoples]

Belief is not good enough, how about some proof about the long term environmental damage. Massive casualties? 4% of the total combat casualties in WW1 were caused by gas.

Overblown rhetoric.

4% of the total combat casualties in WWI were of chemical weapons partly because artillery kills the most in almost any parity war and also because the chemical weapons used in WWI were dreadfully inefficient at producing fatalities. Chlorine, phosgene and mustard gases have to be inhaled in large quantities to be lethal, or otherwise allow for severe skin irritation. They could also be defeated without even using gas masks.

Which is partly why I feel that using WWI as an example of the horrors of chemical warfare isn't especially relevant. The weapons in question had little real control, cumbersome delivery and were only marginally effective, if effective at all.

Compared with a nerve gas attack that can be delivered by ballistic missile, artillery piece, aircraft and infantry mortar, we might as well be discussing different topics. Between three and five thousand were killed at Halabja. The town was practically wiped out. August's thousand-plus dead in the chemical attack in Ghouta managed to strike a fairly convincing population cross-section in its fatalities.

Some higher-grade nerve agents, such as VX or Novichok, were what are known as "persistent agents". Unlike Sarin, which decays within days or even hours, VX and especially Novichok can lay active on the ground for months or even indefinitely. It kills plant life as well, it's a toxic chemical spill.
VX requires full-body protection, as it can kill from pitifully low skin doses and can be absorbed (as low as 10mg absorbed through the skin). It is a liquid which can be deployed as an aerosol. It is described as having the consistency of motor oil and a very low volatility, which is supposed to be one of the reasons why it so persistent.
Novichok was purportedly designed to defeat full MOPP and conventional NBC protection and even be undetectable by conventional CRBN reconnaissance and testing methods, allowing Soviet forces in a prospective war in Europe to kill NATO troops by the million, whether on the battlefield itself, or even in their vehicles. It would also have been practically impossible to decontaminate, on account of being supposedly undetectable.

Hmm...In light of that, and some other research, I can't say I'd be opposed to a clause banning unreasonably persistent chemical weapons. I can't see the need for a chemical weapon that persists for years.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Good answer, thank you - Novichok is an agent I wasn't aware of.

When used, I agree their effects are devastating, but in Ghouta the number of casualties is still only about 1 - 2% of the total during the whole Syrian conflict.

[Dellin]

Good answer, thank you - Novichok is an agent I wasn't aware of.

When used, I agree their effects are devastating, but in Ghouta the number of casualties is still only about 1 - 2% of the total during the whole Syrian conflict.

OOC: That is probably because you are making an argument about the real world, where chemical weapons already have international regulation. Yes, Syria wasn't signed up for those regulations, but it certainly still regulates willingness to employ such weapons.

No such regulations exist in the WA, so your argument is moot.

[Imperializt Russia]

Hmm...In light of that, and some other research, I can't say I'd be opposed to a clause banning unreasonably persistent chemical weapons. I can't see the need for a chemical weapon that persists for years.

There are many things wrong, but not that I feel would be sufficient to make it worth banning them.
I wouldn't be too opposed to trying to ban Novichok agents however (their capabilities were never proven, not to the west at least, and have also never been used, but this is NS), since by not only being persistent but also undetectable makes them too dangerous in my opinion.

VX may be a longstanding contamination risk, but it can at least be detected and cleaned, if at great expense and effort.

Good answer, thank you - Novichok is an agent I wasn't aware of.

When used, I agree their effects are devastating, but in Ghouta the number of casualties is still only about 1 - 2% of the total during the whole Syrian conflict.

The reason for that, of course being, there has only been one large-scale chemical attack in the Syrian Civil War. Whilst chemical weapons were used quite widely in WWI, they were still not on a particular par with other means, primarily the artillery.

Around 50% of casualties in a parity conflict are expected to be from artillery, but in WWI that figure was nearer 60-65% of all casualties. Bear in mind this was with primitive gunlaying and fire direction techniques and shells far less effective than are available today or even in WWII.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Good answer, thank you - Novichok is an agent I wasn't aware of.

When used, I agree their effects are devastating, but in Ghouta the number of casualties is still only about 1 - 2% of the total during the whole Syrian conflict.

OOC: That is probably because you are making an argument about the real world, where chemical weapons already have international regulation. Yes, Syria wasn't signed up for those regulations, but it certainly still regulates willingness to employ such weapons.

No such regulations exist in the WA, so your argument is moot.

If we are going to discuss chemical weapons and their effectiveness then the real world provides us with the necessary examples. My argument was with the rhetoric employed concerning the effects of chemical weapons.

[Separatist Peoples]

Hmm...In light of that, and some other research, I can't say I'd be opposed to a clause banning unreasonably persistent chemical weapons. I can't see the need for a chemical weapon that persists for years.

There are many things wrong, but not that I feel would be sufficient to make it worth banning them.
I wouldn't be too opposed to trying to ban Novichok agents however (their capabilities were never proven, not to the west at least, and have also never been used, but this is NS), since by not only being persistent but also undetectable makes them too dangerous in my opinion.

Interesting. Our position is the reverse. I have a problem with persistent agents, but undetectable ones aren't an issue. A chemical persistent for months is going to be a significant, uncontrollable threat to the environment and civilians. At least weapons that degrade within a matter of hours or days can be reasonably controlled, or civilians reasonably protected to warrant the use of the weaponry. In my opinion. By no means is that sacrosanct.

An undetectable weapon, while disturbing and dangerous, will still have telltale signs of deployment. Suspicion of use will be almost as effective as actual deployment, since the decontamination and investigation will take that much longer. Gives a modern twist on the idea of "quaker guns" from the old American Civil War.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well, this is one of the logical arguments that have been used to implicate the Assad regime in the Ghouta attack. That Sarin rapidly degrades and thus poses no long-term contamination risk in areas in which the agent is used.

[Separatist Peoples]

Honestly, I was considering a more immediate, tactical benefit, but there is that.

Chemically speaking, a substance which degrades and does not persist will leave behind signs of its existence, in the form of unique chemical compounds. As long as a gas is not inert, this will nearly always be the case. As such, a persistent AND undetectable weapon would be very bad. If the weapon is not detectable in it's deployed form, but does not persist, it will eventually become detectable, which is going to allow for an investigation if one is required.

Just my line of thought concerning which is worse, undetectable or persistent.

[Araraukar]

VX may be a longstanding contamination risk, but it can at least be detected and cleaned, if at great expense and effort.

Strange, then, how "it costs too much/is too difficult" was a main argument against deconstructing offensive chemical weapons in an earlier incarnation of this topic.

[The Scientific States]

I support this. It may not go far enough, but I understand why you'd take a mild approach to this, and I think that's a good idea for now.

[Chester Pearson]

I support this. It may not go far enough, but I understand why you'd take a mild approach to this, and I think that's a good idea for now.

It's a compromise. It does not contain everything I want it to, but it has enough in it to make it effective for the time.

[The Scientific States]

I support this. It may not go far enough, but I understand why you'd take a mild approach to this, and I think that's a good idea for now.

It's a compromise. It does not contain everything I want it to, but it has enough in it to make it effective for the time.

Exactly. I know you've tried to pass resolutions like this before, so I think it's a smart move of you to write a resolution that reaches out to nearly everyone.

[Imperializt Russia]

VX may be a longstanding contamination risk, but it can at least be detected and cleaned, if at great expense and effort.

Strange, then, how "it costs too much/is too difficult" was a main argument against deconstructing offensive chemical weapons in an earlier incarnation of this topic.

"If at great expense and effort".

Remember that my argument was that physically dismantling weapons would be highly dangerous and demanding and that alternatives should be pursued. If a chemical agent has been used, there must be at least an attempt at an operation to clean up. If you can't detect an agent used, and it's persistent enough to be permanent, then cleanup is physically impossible.

[Araraukar]

If you can't detect an agent used, and it's persistent enough to be permanent, then cleanup is physically impossible.

If you can't detect an agent at all, then what good is it? If you can't detect it at all, it does no harm to either, right? Cause if it did, you could detect it that way. Also, no chemical substance is completely undetectable, if you know to look for it.

[Imperializt Russia]

If you can't detect an agent used, and it's persistent enough to be permanent, then cleanup is physically impossible.

If you can't detect an agent at all, then what good is it? If you can't detect it at all, it does no harm to either, right? Cause if it did, you could detect it that way. Also, no chemical substance is completely undetectable, if you know to look for it.

Novichok's supposed design goals were to be more lethal than the existing chemical stocks, such as VX, whilst also not being capable of being traced on existing and possibly current NATO CRBN reconnaissance gear.

It was claimed, if never proven to the west, to be significantly more lethal than VX was. It was also supposed to be capable of penetrating existing and possibly current NATO protective gear and maybe even vehicle overpressure systems.

If you're insinuating that being "undetectable" means that you can't notice being killed by it, that's a very peculiar angle to go from it at.
Though, if it is truly 5-8 times as lethal as VX, then as little as 1mg on the skin might constitute a lethal dose.

[Araraukar]

If you're insinuating that being "undetectable" means that you can't notice being killed by it, that's a very peculiar angle to go from it at.

No, my point was that if it's undetectable, it is not harmful either. If it kills people/other organisms, it is by definition detectable with biological indicators.

EDIT: And if biological indicators are affected, then finding out the molecule(s) it binds on, give you a way to create a biochemical detector for it. As I said, nothing is undetectable.

[Imperializt Russia]

Maybe not.
But you then have to change the NATO CRBN reconnaissance gear in order to be able to alert yourself that an attack is underway, an attack that can defeat your MOPP and overpressure filters.

Which is kind of the point of Novichok, supposedly.

Looking for the biological indicators won't be easy. It's tricky enough with VX, where clothes may release aerosolised agent for minutes. Novichok is not visible to NATO CRBN reconnaissance techniques and equipment and can defeat MOPP. You aren't going to be able to get personnel close enough to treat them.

[Araraukar]

*RL stuff snipped*

And this all has exactly what to do with NationStates?

[Imperializt Russia]

*RL stuff snipped*

And this all has exactly what to do with NationStates?

What are you going to use for examples?

Bigtopia's wankonite chemical weapons which only selectively target the nervous systems of Maxtopian troops, leaving civilians and allied forces unaffected?

[Araraukar]

Bigtopia's wankonite chemical weapons which only selectively target the nervous systems of Maxtopian troops, leaving civilians and allied forces unaffected?

I meant more the moaning about NATO needing to change its gear.