International Summit in Segerline - Event

Sorry, we meant the non-usage against civilian targets. Put it the wrong way.

"Oh, my apologies."

"Anyways, what kind of proposal do we all have to fix this? My mind is currently on more... regional matters."

We are currently proposing a "No offensive use of weapons of mass destruction" treaty, which means in practice that no nation may use any kinds of weapons of mass destruction while invading another country. Also, no nation may use weapons of mass destruction against civilians or in the vicinity of civilians.

"What is to prevent a losing nation from nuking the rest of the world's capitals?"

Nothing, except Anti-Ballistic missile systems. But no nation is willing to reduce their WMD stockpiles, so this is what we are going to have to work with. It is not much, but it is a start.

WMD is still left undefined. We are unwilling to sign a treaty not mentioning a clear yield and degree of chemical or biological seriousness for something to be considered WMD

All kinds of biological weapons, should be part of the treaty as they have a risk of spiraling out of control. Chemical weapons should include all chemical weapons that are designed to kill. Nuclear yield should not matter as the lethal radiation will still haunt the land for decades to come.

Not actually true on part of the nuclear weapons, although we agree with the rest

If no one has anything else to add, I guess we'll dive right into next topic and I'll get a treaty up right after the summit.

Today is a very different day from yesterday. Previously we lived in a world filled with dictatorships, which is somewhat true today, but it seems like that world order is about to change. Massive trade unions have arised, and Narcona seems to be on the brink of civil war. Anarchist are threatening this current world order that we stand on. While Segerline broke itself free from its dictatorial shackles long ago, we still fear the rise of the Anarchist. As we can imagine the nations being overrun by anarchist rebels will become safe havens for terrorists such as the Free Workers Solidarity Army and the Shadow. We would like to urge nations not to aid these terrorist scum as it will soon turn to bite them in the ass afterwards. To you all nations who are funding this organisation *The ambassador looks at Fisnavavaada* do you not think that these terrorists will turn coat as soon as they have the chance? Or is it only national interest and greed that leads you to aid these terror scum.

We ask all nations to stop funding the anarchist nightmare as they are clearly aiming towards world domination.

Narcona is concerned about this violent organization. We will wholeheartedly accept any aid should they strike again. We many also point that paranoia of who is supporting these rebels is also causing quite havoc on the international stage. Once we finish our... neighbor problem, we will focus on working against these terrorists.

"I refuse to take judgement from someone like you, oh delegate of Segerline. I hold people to their words, and when that trust is broken, then our people will fight tooth and nail. We will stop at no cost to stop these heartless murderers."

May I suggest a clear distinction between freedom fighters and terrorist groups? I'm sure no one wants to give oppressive governments the justification to suppress dissent in name of counter-terrorism.

borisperrons wrote:May I suggest a clear distinction between freedom fighters and terrorist groups? I'm sure no one wants to give oppressive governments the justification to suppress dissent in name of counter-terrorism.

"In such a case, it should be determined by the actions that group is taking. If there are deliberate civilian casualties, Aquitae will always view that organisation as one to spread terror."

While collateral damage is sure to happen to anyone from government to rebels, what should be classed as a terror organisation is to try to enforce their agenda by terror tactics such as looting or bombing civilian people not loyal to them.

Any attack designed to attack in majority civilians will be viewed as a terror organisation in our eyes.

"The same here."

We might have an idea for the future security of Kerbin. With wars being launched by suprise blitzkriegs, terrorism on the rise and a full out crisis in the past involving three nuclear powers. Maybe it is time to create a international organisation. A union of nations which seek to implement national law and enforce it through sanctions and some times military intervention. What do you all think?

Appe96 wrote:We might have an idea for the future security of Kerbin. With wars being launched by suprise blitzkriegs, terrorism on the rise and a full out crisis in the past involving three nuclear powers. Maybe it is time to create a international organisation. A union of nations which seek to implement national law and enforce it through sanctions and some times military intervention. What do you all think?

"Camponja is unsure. Wouldnt this jsut be an instrument for the most powerful blocks to dominate the rest?''

No, as everyones vote is equal in the decision making. Working in the interests of all nations of the world from large to small. It would be a good way to decrease international tensions and establish international law to avoid things such as the Ürstberg incident.

''So you claim the current emerging blocks will in no way use their larger combined voting power to sway any choices in their favour?''

Let me remind you that no powerblock represents the majority of the world. If the world feels that it is against its interest nations can easily vote down said powerblock. Let's maybe add safeguards such as not voting for sanctions untill a certain law is broken and same goes for military intervention.

''It seems there's a lot left to work out, then. Perhaps working on an exact proposal might be a good idea?"'

Appe96 wrote:Let me remind you that no powerblock represents the majority of the world. If the world feels that it is against its interest nations can easily vote down said powerblock. Let's maybe add safeguards such as not voting for sanctions untill a certain law is broken and same goes for military intervention.

Except your Deassic alliance sphere. 4 countries up against 4, most of which are divided and lack your extreme technological progress.

We are not warmongering against your government. We just wish that your bloc does not do the same for us, as we have no interest in war.