Users browsing this thread:

RandomGuy199 · 05-11-2015, 09:22 PM

(05-11-2015, 04:13 PM)Qwert Wrote: Sedunn would like to point out several issues with the last statement.

Chemical weapons and especially biological weapons are very hard to control once after being used. They affect large areas and are extremely harmful to both civilians and wildlife, the viruses/bacteria used in biological weapons may even mutate beyond control. Since these weapons are inhumane as well, Sedunn regrades them as weapons of mass destruction. It is also not true that conventional weapons no longer are effective.

Also, Sedunn cannot see any reason why there should be a quota on conventional arms if a nation has not proven to be too aggressive. Sedunn also has serious concerns with using military force against one's own citizens.

Karnetvor agrees with this statement.

RandomGuy199
Representative of the Federal Republic of Karnetvor
Resident Venezuelan/Lampshade Bar & Grill Manager- The South Pacific
Soldier, South Pacific Special Forces

RP Information

"You're talkin' to the Rolex wearin', diamond ring wearin', kiss stealin', wheelin' n' dealin', limousine ridin', jet flyin', son of a gun, and I'm having a hard time keeping these alligators down!"

"The Nature Boy" Ric Flair

Scienta · 05-11-2015, 09:28 PM

Another area that Scienta would like to explore seeing the elimination of is the use of mines (on both land and sea), and other weaponry that remain in place after warfare has ended.

We are curious to hear of an example from The International Knights of a non-lethal chemical weapon that they believe should be allowed?

Resentine · 05-11-2015, 09:53 PM

Resentine cannot accept an anti-mine treaty. Underwater mines are a significant part of Resentine's coastal defense plan.

Officially being omnipotent via Tapatalk

An eye for an eye just makes the whole world go blind.
~Mahatma Gandhi

RP-Government Information

Army Ops

**Jay Coop** · 05-11-2015, 09:58 PM

(05-11-2015, 05:39 PM)ProfessorHenn Wrote: No. All weapons of mass destruction must be contained and eliminated.

Jasper Henn

Qvait concurs with Sporaltryus.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Scienta · 05-11-2015, 11:59 PM

Clearly we have an issue here. Every nation so far seems to agree that weapon proliferation must be reduced, but nobody seems to be willing to accept any restriction on their nation's weapons.

Until nations are willing to accept limitations on what weapons they can have, this part of the treaty appears to be going nowhere quickly. If we can not agree on the elimination of certain types of weapons, can we not at least agree to put an end to their proliferation? That is the international trade of them?

Is there anybody that does not agree with a ban on the trade of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons?

VPRB · 05-12-2015, 03:33 AM

Since at the moment we don't have yet a unified S.S.U. stance, we'll state our personal positions.

Bruuma and Puerto Pollo are open to accept the following points:

- A ban on atmospheric testing
- A cap to the numbers of nuclear warheads, which should be equal for any nation
- A commitment to avoid the use of nuclear weapons for any other reason that retiliation for a nuclear attack or to defend the national soil.

We cannot in any way accept any other limitation, including:
- A ban or cap or any other type of weapon, including chemical and biological
- A limitation to arms manifacturing and exporting
- Restriction on transportation of any weapon, including nuclear.
- Restriction on research and technology sharing or trading

Brother Unclepear
Dear Leader of the Voodoo People's Republic of Bruuma

Representing also

El Pollo Diablo
Boss Maximo of the Estado Libre Asociado of Puerto Pollo

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Lo Pol
Core Leader of the People's Republic of Kai Fa

Qwert · 05-12-2015, 09:00 AM

Sedunn supports eliminating the use of anti-personnel mines.

Roleplayer
Manager of the TSP and A1-0 maps
Roleplay moderator

My roleplay nations

Darkstrait · 05-12-2015, 05:04 PM

Perhaps if all mines were required to automatically disarm at a set amount of time--- say, ten years?

Darkstrait :ninja:

Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek

"Hats is very fashion this year."

RP Info

**Farengeto** · 05-12-2015, 06:42 PM

(05-12-2015, 05:04 PM)Darkstrait Wrote: Perhaps if all mines were required to automatically disarm at a set amount of time--- say, ten years?

That's not how mines work.

Resentine · 05-12-2015, 06:43 PM

(05-12-2015, 05:04 PM)Darkstrait Wrote: Perhaps if all mines were required to automatically disarm at a set amount of time--- say, ten years?

We would have to collect the mines manually and disarm them. We have no timers on such things.

Officially being omnipotent via Tapatalk

An eye for an eye just makes the whole world go blind.
~Mahatma Gandhi

RP-Government Information

Army Ops