At Vote: Unconventional Arms Accord

Great Bights Mum

Grande Dame
-
-
-
-
The resolution quoted below is currently up for vote in the UN.

Please post your views and stance on this resolution. Note, however, that you must have a UN nation in The North Pacific, or on active NPA duty, in order for the Delegate to count your vote.

The voting on the forum will close on Sat., Nov. 18, 2006 at 11:59pm GMT.

The Resolution at Vote:
Unconventional Arms Accord
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny

Description: The nations and their deputies here assembled, having convened, conferred, and agreed to the whole of this article, have made the following determinations:

i. The intentional slaughter of innocent civilians through unconventional warfare is a heinous and contemptible act.

ii. Such acts are war crimes, and those who propagate them are war criminals.

iii. Although it is imperative for nations to defend themselves, their people and their allies against attacks by hostile forces, the killing of civilians by such means is wholly unnecessary for this purpose.

iv. Unconventional arms are munitions or devices designed to disperse chemical or biological agents with the effect of irreparably harming, incapacitating or killing troops or civilians; these include various nerve, blister, choking, blood or incapacitating chemical agents, and infectious or contagious viruses, bacteria or microbes, but do not include neutralized biological agents used for vaccines, or mild chemical agents commonly used for law enforcement or personal self-defense, such as tear gas, MACE or pepper spray.

v. Civilians are persons who do not serve an important national political function, who are not members of any national military, paramilitary or police force, or who are serving such forces but in a non-military capacity.

vi. This body must take reasonable measures to prevent the death of civilians in war. They have therefore committed the United Nations to the following provisions:

1. Condemning the intentional use of unconventional arms against civilian populations;

2. Enjoining member states against deliberately targeting civilians with unconventional arms;

3. Requiring member states to take good faith measures to prevent unnecessary civilian casualties in combat operations;

4. Obligating member states to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, on pain of the strongest penalties available under the law, all those under their jurisdiction who have been credibly accused of violating Clause 2;

5. Urging nations to forge agreements allowing for the swift extradition of suspected war criminals under this article, to assure that suspects are transferred to the proper jurisdiction;

6. Encouraging the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel, mitigate civilian damage, and serve as alternatives to more deadly and destructive forms of chemical and biological warfare;

7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.

In witness whereof the undersigned, having deposited their respective full powers, have signed the present convention.
 
AGAINST.

Tow the middle line and hope to pick up votes from both sides?

Or, to add more detail, I'm suspicious of any resolution that preaches the horror of using chemical or biological weapons on civilians, and then tacks on a "but feel free to keep on making them" clause at the end. Wanting to make an anti-unconventional weapons resolution, but realising it wouldn't get through unless the gun crazies are pacified.

Clause 6 is especially rubbish...

Encouraging the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel (How exactly does a chemical know how to target only military or political personnel?), mitigate civilian damage("Hold it lads, thats a civilian! Quick, back in the bomb!), and serve as alternatives to more deadly and destructive forms of chemical and biological warfare;(Perhaps nerve agents that give people a bit of a rash, or biological weapons that block the nose for a couple of days)

And as for Clause 7, you'd be amazed how often dropping a lab load of super bred influenza on another nations capital is vital to national defence...

The good bits of the resolution are not nearly good enough. And the bad bits pretty much give UN endorsement to biological and chemical weapons. Something I don't think the UN should be doing for any reason.
 
AGAINST.

Tow the middle line and hope to pick up votes from both sides?

Or, to add more detail, I'm suspicious of any resolution that preaches the horror of using chemical or biological weapons on civilians, and then tacks on a "but feel free to keep on making them" clause at the end. Wanting to make an anti-unconventional weapons resolution, but realising it wouldn't get through unless the gun crazies are pacified.

Clause 6 is especially rubbish...

Encouraging the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel (How exactly does a chemical know how to target only military or political personnel?), mitigate civilian damage("Hold it lads, thats a civilian! Quick, back in the bomb!), and serve as alternatives to more deadly and destructive forms of chemical and biological warfare;(Perhaps nerve agents that give people a bit of a rash, or biological weapons that block the nose for a couple of days)

And as for Clause 7, you'd be amazed how often dropping a lab load of super bred influenza on another nations capital is vital to national defence...

The good bits of the resolution are not nearly good enough. And the bad bits pretty much give UN endorsement to biological and chemical weapons. Something I don't think the UN should be doing for any reason.
To be truthful, I hadn't read through the whole thing as it was, as I said, long. If it has stuff like that than I say NYET NAY!
 
With the tally at 5/7 I have voted against the resolution.

@HC: I was unable to count your vote as it appears your UN nation is otherwise occupied.
 
Back
Top