IPO Vote: Biological and Chemical weapons ban.

[Pachamama]

"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."

[Xyrael]

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 >>

[Delfos]

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.

[Pachamama]

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?"

[Xyrael]

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.

[Delfos]

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.