Taijitu
Forum Meta => Treaty Conferences/Organisations => Role Play => Archived Role Play Boards => Archive => IPO => Topic started by: Delfos on November 01, 2007, 02:32:31 PM
-
The current administration saw with good eyes the projects that failed to be elected.
Although not a majority's will, certain interesting parts of those projects came to attention, and we think they should be applied by election.
Part extracted from:
Terrangar Project
To create a ban for (...) Biological and chemical weapons.
This will only be affecting the use of such as a weapon against humans.
-
Against this nonsense!
-
Why is anyone voting against this?
-
I can argue to say Biological weapons are bad, and should be banned, but Chemical weapons are fine, otherwise nations with technological supremacy couldn't use that against an enemy.
-
The Imperial Illuminate will vote FOR if it may retain the ability to use chemical and biological weapons as a response to chemical/biological attack.
-
that sounds reasonable.
-
Feniexia will not restrict their weaponry. While we agree that chemical and biological weapons might be inhumane, and the Feniexian military is trying to gain victory without needless usage of such, but, we also know that wars were never humane and in some cases you will have to use more unconventional weaponry.
-
Scientific advancement of a nation must be carried out to war too! If we have better chemicals than another nation why shouldn't we use them?!
-
Because it's inhumane? If, fifty years from now, I invent a bomb that can obliterate the Earth, why not move to Mars, destroy the Earth, and attain final world peace with a new hegemony of only a few million people under one government?
-
Because then, you are involving the lives of innocent, and humans that have nothing to do with your belligerent cause. I request that a protocol is created along this bill as derogation for belligerent use of Chemical Weapons against military targets only. The effectiveness of chemical weapons against military targets is not subjective, but objective. Impact and explosive weapons, such as an Air Strike or Artillery Barrage, are highly destructive and are practically ineffective compared to Chemical Weapons, that destroy less, means less massive destruction, but have a high effectiveness, in range and proportion. Lets imagine you have a battalion of enemy infantry to attack your country and you are at war with that enemy. A conventional weapons would basically estimate the area of damage and attack it, in order to stop the enemy from attacking your country, but more than few might not be stopped, and your attack can even miss, causing unnecessary destruction, while Chemical Weapons, always allied to smart weapons, is more effective in stopping the enemy, and will cause minor destruction, and no damage to infra-structures. From this I defend that Chemical weapons are much more effective, also very dangerous if in the wrong hands, that's why we need to define the target, as military targets only.
Without this protocol, the effectiveness of an army is in question, and probably there will be more resources wasted for the same end, when, if Chemical Weapons are allowed, those will do the job fine.
Don't you agree?
-
True, for purely military purposes, chemical weapons are just as valid as any other kind of weapon. But we do need something regulating using them against population centers for shock and awe purposes. If civilians are involved, we must not use chemical weapons. Unfortunately, this will likely have the nasty side effect of armies regularly taking refuge in population centers to avoid being chemically attacked.
-
That's why it should be a derogation protocol for military use against military target only. Any than that is strictly forbidden. But that situation goes as any other, my Nation's military protocol mentions that we cannot bomb areas with civilians in it, so it would go either way for chemicals, since chemicals have higher area of range, and they wouldn't be proper to use in populated areas.
-
Most chemical weapons contaminate the surrounding area with harmful substances, and will affect the civilian population in the long term.
-
Can you give examples?
-
Germany and France after WWI.
-
but then there are weapons such as tear gas, which is a chemical weapon that is designed so that no actual harm needs to come to its targets. we should not have an outright ban.
-
Yes, but a ban on lethal chemical weapons that leave residue would be appropriate.
-
I understand the persistence issue, so we should clear the classes of chemical weapons, and those persistent in wherever must be outlawed.
Classes of chemical weapon agents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare)
-
Well I think the definitions here are perfectly clear. The ban should be for Schedule 1 weapons then, as many of the other chemicals have industrial uses and prohibiting them may ruin a nations industry. However all nations should look into possibility's to replace Schedule 2 and 3 chemicals with less dangerous substances if economically and technically feasible.
Maybe we could work that into the treaty?
-
This is about military uses and the argument is that chemical warfare is legitimate warfare, as humane as lead and shrapnel. I agree with this point in the case of non-persistent agents that are not designed to be crippling (fatal is acceptable, but crippling is just cruel).
-
I can agree with that ^ . Does anyone else?
-
The Illuminate is inclined to note that should unresistricted warfare be waged against her, she reserves the right to respond in kind. Eye for an eye, let this be a warning. Any chemical attack against citizens of the Illuminate will be responded in a 5:1 official casualty goal, meaning that the Illuminate will not tolerate the inhumane harm of her citizenry without vengeance.
Noting this, the Illuminate will never initiate unrestricted warfare with chemical, biological, nuclear, or other weapons deemed inhumane by international consensus.
-
The Illuminate seem to be walking the other way. You walk for self-insurance, retaliation, war. We want peace-insurance, diplomacy, world-peace. Inhumane weapons must not be an item of a nation that desires to be part of world-peace.
-
The Road to Peace can be acheived through several paths, and ignorance is not the safest. You can not blindly believe that people will not attack you because you are a champion of peace! The goal of this organization is peace, which blatantly admits that peace does not exist. The possession of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons do not equivocate to their use. The Illuminate may possess these weapons, but in a manner of deterence, not in a manner of aggression. As such, are the Illuminates weapons the cause of the downfall of peace? If it was that simple, if the Illuminate simply dismantled her weapons, would world peace instantly be achieved? No, therefore perhaps the true problem lies elsewhere.
-
"Maybe the Illuminate can enlighten us to were those problems lie and guide us towards a possible solution.
Show us a path we should walk."
Talman Yar knew that it was the utter lack of cynicism in his voice that made him a good diplomat.
-
You are right, world-peace doesn't exist, cannot be achieved by a singular action like your nation dismantling it's weaponry. That's why this organization was created, so we can all share our responsibility to create world-peace, and arming yourself or start an arms-race isn't going to achieve world peace at all. Your problem only solves short-annoyances, what about the world-peace goal? Do you think it will be achieved if we are all armed to the teeth with massive destruction weapons? What about terrorism? As far as we know, and we do know our large share about terrorism, arming ourselves to the teeth will only make it worse, you will more likely deny any right or freedom to struggling groups and they will be forced to use force against your population.
Look, I'm not saying we should demilitarize, or give freedoms to terrorists, no. I'm saying, we can't show the bad example by arming ourselves to the teeth to insure our own peace, we need to share the problem with every nation that wants peace. If you don't, I don't see the reason why a nation would like to participate on an organization with the goal of world-peace.
-
If Xyrael justifies it's right to such weapons, does it also support this same right to other nations?
-
Delegate of Pachamama, the problem is not weapons and systems of defense, it is resources. You do not start a war because they have better guns, where is the sanity in that? Nor do nuclear powers go to war because they are invincible machines, for what is left to conquer but dust through their use. Resources are what is needed to achieve peace, for there are haves and there are have nots. Should the needs of the world be fulfilled through the adequate distribution of water, food, housing, education, perhaps this world would not be so instable. But everywhere people are lacking. Within the American continent they vie against each other for routes to trade, the DSA is beset on all sides by economic enemies, and you wonder why they are so quick to go to war! It is not madness, it is the struggle to survive. In poorer regions, broken governments exist because people need. They need education, they need food, they need responsible governance. Their priority is not to ensure their enemy does not have anthrax, their priority is to ensure they have food, water, and anything else they need to prosper.
Our challenge is not to deliver us from weapons of destruction, it is to think outside the box. How do we accomplish world-wide equal distribution of resources without infringing upon national sovereignty and the profits of capitalism?
-
Our challenge is not to deliver us from weapons of destruction, it is to think outside the box. How do we accomplish world-wide equal distribution of resources without infringing upon national sovereignty and the profits of capitalism?
Quite a challenge there, but we don't. And as far I'm concerned, you represent the sovereignty of Xyrael in this organization, and you are free to have choices, you and your nation. One of the choices is to convince us of a new path to follow, you can make a project for the 15th of November Administration or to try to repeal this ban and convince us it is the best path.
-
The Illuminate has changed her vote to AGAINST. The Illuminate feels this topic is worth another look, but until a document detailing the full extent of the demand is set forth the Illuminate no longer feels that it should support a vague solution to a hot topic.
-
"Well said delegate. Then maybe we should put this on the top of our to do list"
Yar was quite satisfied with the response.
So the man wasn't a total paranoid megalomaniac at all. It just took a challenge for him to show that he had more than rants and raves.
"I think we should pick up on that idea. Maybe the honorable delegate could put up a plan. A raw outline on which we could then work"
"But to return to the problem at hand. On the danger of repeating myself. Let me quote " I believe that this organizations motto in all matters should be “Do what you can with what you have, were you are”
We can not force an undersigned nation to fulfill it’s duties in an unrealistic way.
If they sign a ban on nuclear weapons then we can not demand that they make their weapons disappear over night.
Our military experts who have studied other countries nuclear weapon designs say that it takes quite some time to dismantle such a device safely.
Also I think signing a ban and not increasing your arsenal is a show of good will and a first step." End quote
The same goes for other weapons like these. So maybe we can find a way to sign a treaty not outright banning these weapons but creating a organization that prevents such weapons from being spread any further, falling into the wrong hands and maybe we could hold further increase in the numbers of such weapons. If the Xyraeli delegate would offer his opinion? Thank you."
-
The Illuminate is concerned with the definition and usage of the word "ban". Please define the word in it's context through this vote. Would ban require an immediate disassembly of our arsenal, prevent the sale of weapons, prevent the production of weapons, or a combination of the aforementioned.
Posted on: November 07, 2007, 01:47:32 PM
<< vote removed until clarification made >>
-
Good question, I already suggested that we can make a protocol for harmful disposable weapons, such as nuclear, to remain in the nation's arsenal, being strictly forbidden to produce any more of those. But any other weapons can be easily dismantled and destroyed being appointed a period of time for disposal.
-
The Illuminate is concerned with the definition and usage of the word "ban". Please define the word in it's context through this vote. Would ban require an immediate disassembly of our arsenal, prevent the sale of weapons, prevent the production of weapons, or a combination of the aforementioned.
Posted on: November 07, 2007, 01:47:32 PM
<< vote removed until clarification made >>
"Originally a ban would have meant all of the above. But I think we should redefine a ban as to not increasing the arsenals and not selling those weapons to any other nation. Also i would propose that the treaty is reviewed every so often to see if the state of the world allows for a reduction in these arms. Despite what you have said if you do not believe in the possibility of a safer and more peaceful world why even try? If in the end nothing ever changes then maybe we do not deserve peace. We - and I mean in the broad sens- take innumerable risks to "defend our sovereignty" and "gain res sources" but for peace we are unwilling to risk the slightest.
Dysanii is risking his peoples lives just to enforce a political statement. While we are unwilling to risk even the freezing of our arsenals at the current level?
You said something about a 5 by 1 counterattack. Is this not enough? Why produce more weapons and make it 10 by 1?"
-
By 5 to 1, the Illuminate was stressing the imporance it puts upon the lives of its people. The Illuminate does not govern any other person, and must nurture and care for its flock to the best of its ability. Any attack against the one citizen is an attack against every citizen, and the Illuminate merely warns that it will not tolerate this. 10 to 1 is obviously a rhetorical question, it would be more congruous with genocide for us to commit to this policy.
As for the dismantling of weapons, the Illuminate proposes this be as Pachamama says, a phased policy (ooc: like SALT) and the banning of new productions is sufficient. Furthermore, the Illuminate would suggest that the Administator open for discussion the idea of an International Police Force to ensure that the IPO's regulations are being carried through.
If the Administrator would confirm what the Terrangar delegate has said concerning the status of "ban" then the Illuminate will vote for.
-
The administration thinks this issue needs a more deep discussion and is not willing to confirm or stipulate any further. A new bill needs to be created with the general need of coherence. I will form a forum of discussion with the current proposals so we can agree to a new resolution. The current status of this poll is not giving any other chance, and even if the score changed in favor I would propose a repeal for further conciliation about the matter.