PASSED: Biological Weapons Conference

[Bergnovinaia]

Although I submitted it, I would still appreciate any comments/suggestions/criticism/etc. You can support my proposal here. http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal/council=0/start=5

[In Queue] Biological Weapons Conference

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant
Proposed By; Bergnovinaia

Description:

The WA,

DEFINES biological weapons as:
1)Any form of an infectious or biological agent of any kind that is intended to cause death, permanent illness, or injury.
2)This includes but is not limited to biologically-derived toxins and poisons, living microorganisms (bacteria, protozoa, viruses, and fungi), and toxins (chemicals that are produced by microorganisms, plants, or animals).
3)Any synthetic agent that mimics agents listed in the above two sections.

APPALLED at the devastation biological weapons can wreak on civilian and military populations alike;

REALIZING that the disarmament of biological weapons will aid efforts in international
peace;

DECLARES that the risk of use of biological weapons infecting non-involved nations is not worth utilizing the weapons;

NOTING that some nations may not use biological weapons;

Hereby:

1. REQUIRES member states to disarm their biological arsenal, never acquire or possess a biological weapon, or assist any non-member nation in any way to develop, acquire, or deploy such weapons (except for article 5).

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

3. ALLOWS any member nation to attack non-member nations with any force necessary if they are attacked with biological weapons (except with biological weapons of any kind).

4.DEMANDS that precautionary measures to prevent trafficking of these weapons or agents are taken.

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.

[Malikov]

Bio weapons can be aimed specifically at the extermination of a single sentient being. Traditional bombs cause damage to everything they come into contact with. Bio-bombs are much less detrimental on the environment. Now, I know you'll say that bio-bombs much more detrimental to a single sentient species then traditional bombs, but thats the point of war, to eliminate the enemy. All this is doing is restricting our ability to defend ourselves from non-WA nations. WA nations have a history of being against resolutions that restrict the effectivness of national security.

[Bergnovinaia]

Bio weapons can be aimed specifically at the extermination of a single sentient being. Traditional bombs cause damage to everything they come into contact with. Bio-bombs are much less detrimental on the environment. Now, I know you'll say that bio-bombs much more detrimental to a single sentient species then traditional bombs, but thats the point of war, to eliminate the enemy. All this is doing is restricting our ability to defend ourselves from non-WA nations. WA nations have a history of being against resolutions that restrict the effectivness of national security.

I get your point. However, nuclear bombs usually do overall more damage. This is not restrciting the rights to have nukes. In fact, it would probably encourage having more.

[Grittonia]

Good proposal.
'Nuff Said.

[Bergnovinaia]

Good proposal.
'Nuff Said.

Thanks.

[Malikov]

Bad proposal. Wont pass.
'Nuff said.

[Bergnovinaia]

Bad proposal. Wont pass.
'Nuff said.

What makes you so sure? Biological weapons aren't exactly key to warfare. Nuclear arms are.

[Malikov]

I think that disease has the ability to kill more people then nuclear arms, mostly because they have the ability to mutate, and continue infecting and killing, long after their release. Plus, nations generally don't have the facilities to treat armies of dying soliders. Nuclear weapons are more dramatic. Bio weapons are infinitly more deadly, as they have the ability to kill people, military or civilian, for generations after the war is over.

Which would you feel more comfortably doing (if forced to of course). Launching a nuke at a major city, or releasing a highly contagious, mutanagenic, not to mention extremely deadly virus or bacteria into an entire nation?

[Bergnovinaia]

I think that disease has the ability to kill more people then nuclear arms, mostly because they have the ability to mutate, and continue infecting and killing, long after their release. Plus, nations generally don't have the facilities to treat armies of dying soliders. Nuclear weapons are more dramatic. Bio weapons are infinitly more deadly, as they have the ability to kill people, military or civilian, for generations after the war is over.

Which would you feel more comfortably doing (if forced to of course). Launching a nuke at a major city, or releasing a highly contagious, mutanagenic, not to mention extremely deadly virus or bacteria into an entire nation?

First of all it is not total disarmament. Read the proposal. Second, nukes can cause genetic mutations decades after the initial explsoion. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in RL for example. They're still uninhabitable.

[Malikov]

Limiting the amount of bio-weapons a nation can have reduces the effectivness of a WA nations ability to defend itself. Non-WA nations could have thousands of bios weapons, and if this passed, we would only get a puny one-hundred!? Sorry, but this is something I will never support.

[Niur]

I think that disease has the ability to kill more people then nuclear arms, mostly because they have the ability to mutate, and continue infecting and killing, long after their release. Plus, nations generally don't have the facilities to treat armies of dying soliders. Nuclear weapons are more dramatic. Bio weapons are infinitly more deadly, as they have the ability to kill people, military or civilian, for generations after the war is over.

Which would you feel more comfortably doing (if forced to of course). Launching a nuke at a major city, or releasing a highly contagious, mutanagenic, not to mention extremely deadly virus or bacteria into an entire nation?

First of all it is not total disarmament. Read the proposal. Second, nukes can cause genetic mutations decades after the initial explsoion. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in RL for example. They're still uninhabitable.

uh no their not, the mutations are from people that were exposed to the inatial radition, which wore off in a couple of years.

[Bergnovinaia]

Limiting the amount of bio-weapons a nation can have reduces the effectivness of a WA nations ability to defend itself. Non-WA nations could have thousands of bios weapons, and if this passed, we would only get a puny one-hundred!? Sorry, but this is something I will never support.

Hence the clause:

ENCOURAGES member nations to support member nations that are involved in a biological war if the weapons said member nation is attacked with exceeds 100 weapons.

[Niur]

you know if you are attacked with 100 bio-weopons you are pretty much screwed anyway.

[Malikov]

Yet, there are still more non-WA nations then WA nations. Your draft (as I've said time, and time again) will make WA nations more vulnerable against non-WA nations then we already are! How about a draft that gurantees a nations right to bio weapons, and encourages the exchange of information regarding these weapons between member nations? Thats something I would support.

[Bergnovinaia]

Yet, there are still more non-WA nations then WA nations. Your draft (as I've said time, and time again) will make WA nations more vulnerable against non-WA nations then we already are! How about a draft that gurantees a nations right to bio weapons, and encourages the exchange of information regarding these weapons between member nations? Thats something I would support.

Perhaps. I'll write that later if this gets little support.

[Niur]

you know if you are attacked with 100 bio-weopons you are pretty much screwed anyway.

you should add the cluase Encourages wars with wa members and non wa members that HAVE MORE THAN 100 bio-weopons.

[Malikov]

So you'll write a draft encouraging the possesion of bio-weapons, after writing a draft to restrict the possesion of bio-weapons? I don't mean to be offensive, but thats something even Meldaria wouldn't do.

[Bergnovinaia]

So you'll write a draft encouraging the possesion of bio-weapons, after writing a draft to restrict the possesion of bio-weapons? I don't mean to be offensive, but thats something even Meldaria wouldn't do.

Not in the near future. That would make me look like an idiot.

[Bergnovinaia]

you know if you are attacked with 100 bio-weopons you are pretty much screwed anyway.

you should add the cluase Encourages wars with wa members and non wa members that HAVE MORE THAN 100 bio-weopons.

Or maybe a clause that says, "Encourages WA members to commit suicide." Much simpler than yours.

[Niur]

So you'll write a draft encouraging the possesion of bio-weapons, after writing a draft to restrict the possesion of bio-weapons? I don't mean to be offensive, but thats something even Meldaria wouldn't do.

hey, hypocrosy and politics go hand in hand.

[Malikov]

It doesn't matter when you try to do something like that. If this resolution your working on gets passed, someone would pull your Biological Weapons Act (or whatever your calling it) up, and you would look like a Meldarian-class bonehead.

[Niur]

you know if you are attacked with 100 bio-weopons you are pretty much screwed anyway.

you should add the cluase Encourages wars with wa members and non wa members that HAVE MORE THAN 100 bio-weopons.

Or maybe a clause that says, "Encourages WA members to commit suicide." Much simpler than yours.

okay "ENCOURAGES wars with nations that use more than 100 bio-weopons"

[Bergnovinaia]

So your encouraging nations to have non-WA allies with a bunch of bio-weapons?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Biological weapons have no legitimate defensive applications whatsoever, and the WA already allows members to possess nukes, so why would they even need a "defensive" bioweapons arsenal? If you're going to ban bioweapons, then ban them; don't try to appease inhuman countries by assuring them a "defensive" arsenal they can use against non-WA nations. It is a war crime to kill citizens of non-WA nations just as it is to kill citizens of nations in the WA. It seems to me the WA would want to eliminate crimes against humanity by its members, not simply categorize them as an offense punishable only when your enemy is in the WA.

[Bergnovinaia]

Biological weapons have no legitimate defensive applications whatsoever, and the WA already allows members to possess nukes, so why would they even need a "defensive" bioweapons arsenal? If you're going to ban bioweapons, then ban them; don't try to appease inhuman countries by assuring them a "defensive" arsenal they can use against non-WA nations. It is a war crime to kill citizens of non-WA nations just as it is to kill citizens of nations in the WA. It seems to me the WA would want to eliminate crimes against humanity by its members, not simply categorize them as an offense punishable only when your enemy is in the WA.

So removal of the "100 bio weapons limit" is necessary? I think you're right that if legislation is intending to ban it, it should ban it.