well some of the points in the draft are basically information like, "If I drink too much beer, I will pee allot."
They shouldn't count as points for a legislation but as a text or a different part I say. You have some of the information out of the points and some inside, put it all in each place, information goes to the header or foot-text, and points are strictly to legislation points: "Do not drink too much beer."
now on some of the points you have words that 'suggest' some action. "If you nuke civilians I
might slap your ass for bad behavior."
1) The treaty will include freezing of current arsenals and reduction of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to second strike purposes only.
information mixed with legislation, make it sound threatening:
"YOU SHALL NOT INCREASE YOUR CURRENT NBC ARSENAL!"
"YOU WILL BE SUBJECT TO REDUCTION OF YOUR NBC ARSENAL!"
"NBC ARSENAL SHALL BE USED TO SECOND STRIKE PURPOSES ONLY!"
there, I just created 3 legislation points out of an information sentence.
Well i do understand this in a draft of an incoming treaty but I want to see it written. And let me set it clear I still think Chemical weapons that are not persistent should be maintained.
2) A stop will be put on the production of NBC weapons.
hurray! but we should discuss about non-persistent Chemical weapons.
3) Undersigned nations will refrain from selling nuclear weapons, parts or technologies that will enable a nation to produce nuclear weapons.
See the suggestion? What if they don't like your suggestion? It should be threatening,
"DON'T EVER THINK ABOUT TRYING TO BUY, SELL OR PRODUCE NBC ARSENAL!"
What if they do anyway? What's going to happen? You put sanctions to them their whole life while they profit more with NBC market than without sanctions?
3.1) Exempt from this is technology used for civilian purposes.
Nice touch, should be named protocol, but there's something you might miss, there's non-lethal nuclear material used for both civilian and military purposes, how can you defined what is NBC arsenal and what is just material? For example, gaseous tritium used in weapon sights to glow in the dark, is that arsenal? There's a gray area, we need to define that.
4) Those nations that do not posses nuclear weapons will refrain from developing, purchasing or gaining them in any other way.
Suggestion without consequences again, and this is basically the same as the last one but more simple, and instead of "Undersigned nations" is "nations that do not posses nuclear weapons" (which doesn't include bio/chemi warfare). Don't you rather make it universal? you could merge both points in one.
5) The treaty will be put under review every year by the IPO International Atomic Energy Council and should it be found that the world has become a more stable and peaceful place then the arsenal will be reduced.
information, not exactly legislation about NBC ban.
So let me start bargaining about chemical weapons, I don't think non-persistent chemical weapons should be banned. It's the upper hand of chemically advanced warfare against raw one. The use of such chemicals, either gaseous, burning or blasting that are not persistent withing the applicative environment have no harm to long-term co-existing entities such as civilians, crops or air. Since they should be banned for nothing but against a threat to the security of your nation and limited to enemy targets only and considering the estimated radius of such warfare, civilians wouldn't be at risk ever. Chemicals do a better job than any other warfare to specific area of attack and are more precise so they reduce the risk of unnecessary or collateral destruction. I request a protocol to be made for this restrictions to the use of Chemical weapons, also allowing the production in any scale of non-persistent chemical weapons. Maybe it should be also restricted the selling or buying of such warfare...since it is already banned by the treaty above, then the protocol should only focus on the production.
