International Summit in Segerline - Event

"We must have been the msot peaceful nation. There is infomartion that is classified, but as far as they told me there is no WMD arsenal in our country of any knid. Any i know of. As far as the question goes, I believe that WMD are the worst invention of kerbalkind, and lead only to death and drop of economy and the fall of a nation. Therefore i believe we must stop any actions that would make sue of these weapons.

"I feel I must add also that the Imperium has no plans to redact our future construction of WMDs."

With the very destructive nature of weapons of mass destruction as the name suggest, we think that we as a civilized world should sign a agreement. A agreement that no nation no matter the odds, shall fire their weapons of mass destruction first. This is to prevent a full out kerbin destructive war that would wipe out all life which is a indeed a very real possibility with the current nuclear stockpiles.

Gladia can agree to those terms.

What is considered a WMD per the treaty? We are not willing to sign until you tell us more about the details

Although the treaty has not been written yet, we can list what we can consider adding to that list.

Nuclear weapons: All kinds of weapons using nuclear fission and fusion. The reason being that higher yields can wipe out entire cities and have cause a nuclear winter. Also the reason why we want to limit lower yields is the very danger of nuclear fallout. It will take decades for the nuclear fallout to dissapear, even if the nuclear yield is small.

Dirty bombs: Something more considered a weapon of mass disruption, is designed as a area of denial weapon and to scare civilians. However its radiation is still leathal and if released can render the target are uninhabitable.

Biological weapons: Any weapon that uses any biological forms to attack its enemies. It can be a bacteria that spreads like wildfire in a nation and potentially spreads to other nations. If we are unlucky it could mean the end of civilization as we know it. Also biological weapons that kills crops and livestock should be added here, as it can cause a massive famine not just in the target nation but in nations in the surrounding area and can potentially wipe out common plants that we use for agriculture.

Chemical weapons: Due to their indiscriminate nature, capable of killing countless civilians close to the battlefield or in cities if directly targeted aswell as much livestock. Chemical weapons can not be controled thus winds can carry very dangerous posions and chemicals that kills everyone in the surrounding area. All chemicals designed to kill in vapour and liquid form is considered chemical weapons.

The Kahlawian Government won't sign such an agreement. We are willing to use every possible mean to defend our People, and this includes the first use of nuclear weapons. I won't commit my nation to an agreement that is obvious everyone will forgive when the moment comes.

We must second Kahlawia. This will not work. However i do suggest banning biological weapons, because they pose a global threat, while chemical or nuclear weapons only damages the areas they hit.

We see that nuclear weapons in a extended war posses a larger threat than biological weapons as it also targets all plantlife and animals in the region. A biological weapon only targets one race. We will not destroy our biological weapons untill all nations has destroyed their weapons of mass destruction.

So you'd rather kill almost all of the kerbals on kerbin, then kill some plants and animals? The kerbal death toll would be waay higher then the animal/plant one with a chemical / nuclear attack

No in a extended nuclear war. All life on kerbin would be lost. All of it, all lands would be uninhabitable. In a biological war there is a possibilty that all kerbals die but nothing more.

Yes but in a war with 2 nations, a nuclear attack would devastate both countries. With a biological attack it would devastate the whole world

At which case we would not use a biological weapon unless we were entirely certain that we can contain it.

Narcona will keep it's two warheads for self defense.

"The Imperium sees no need for such a treaty. If nations have weapons, when time comes, they will use them. A bit of writing on paper would be the last thing on a leader's mind if those weapons were the step needed to ensure their country's survival; they will use them."

May we propsoe a change to the treaty? How about "Not using WMD in any offensive way, only for defense"? Why dont we ban offensive wars at all?

Offensive wars may be necessary at times if the targeted nation posses a large threat to the world. However we can agree to no offensive use of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Please tell me how you can defensively use a biological weapon

Attack the enemy troops with a germ agent is not that hard with our capabilities. We send our classified delivery system towards the enemy camp and watch them die a horrible death. It is also used as a deterrent for enemies to attack us with their weapons of mass destruction, at which case we would spread our agent all around their country in a moments notice.

Might we also point out that "small" and "large" yield are left undefined in the concept?

"We propose that biological, nuclear and chemical weapons are not to be used on civilian targets also."

We agree with the use against civilian targets.

"And why is that?"