Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Devastator]

I'm saying that dirty bombs don't destroy the land, and certainly not more so than non-radioactive contamination, say by setting oil wells on fire.

[andrea]

Would you vote for the treaty if it included only fission reactions?

[Devastator]

Would you vote for the treaty if it included only fission reactions?

No.  Arstotzka is not making any concessions.  Writing it up as fission reactions is simply to fix a clause that doesn't say what it is supposed to say.

[Sheb]

What kind of concession are you talking about?

[Devastator]

What kind of concession are you talking about?

Resources, technology, territory, or restrictions on existing Arstotzkan weaponry.

[andrea]

We tried to discuss the treaty for years. If you want ' concessions', perhaps ask? Also,  all the articles cover things neither side has. So not sure what kind of advantage you think we are getting.  Furthrrmore, the current iteration is the product of discussion with a couple of your guys.

[Devastator]

Seriously, if you're worried about nukes, and want them gone, give at least some reason to ban them.  It doesn't need to be huge.  Right now the treaty reads 'we're worried about this, so we want it banned, and in return you get nothing.  Nothing!'

[andrea]

We are not getting anything useful from this. Any other moskurg want to make proposal?

 So far we have ghazkull voting to have only the ban on decryption.  Evilcherry supports that, not sure of stance on other matters. Kashyyk supports the current draft.

[10ebbor10]

You get us not building them either, and we have more resources and a way to deliver them.

[Devastator]

You get us not building them either, and we have more resources and a way to deliver them.

It is possible to destroy a city and kill people perfectly well without nuclear weapons.

[tryrar]

You get us not building them either, and we have more resources and a way to deliver them.

It is possible to destroy a city and kill people perfectly well without nuclear weapons.

Seriously, if there is a condition you want for you to be on board with this, would you just come out and say what exactly it is? Not that I don't think it matters at this point since a good number of Moskurg players have said yes, but more consensus is better.

[Baffler]

I'll go for this version of the treaty.

Proposed Arstotzka-Moskurg War Treaty

• The intentional usage of any solid, gaseous or liquid acidic, paralytic, or nerve agent that can directly harm humans on humans is prohibited
• The intentional usage of any weapon that utilizes harmful natural or engineered diseases that can directly harm humans on humans is prohibited
• The intentional usage of any weapon that causes radioactive contamination higher than background radiation such that it causes increased radiation-related health concerns is prohibited
• The usage or production of any weapons capable of spreading radioactive contamination over any area is prohibited
• Only the intended recipient of an encoded message is permitted to decode it

How's that?

[Andres]

I'll go for this version of the treaty.

Proposed Arstotzka-Moskurg War Treaty

• The intentional usage of any solid, gaseous or liquid acidic, paralytic, or nerve agent that can directly harm humans on humans is prohibited
• The intentional usage of any weapon that utilizes harmful natural or engineered diseases that can directly harm humans on humans is prohibited
• The intentional usage of any weapon that causes radioactive contamination higher than background radiation such that it causes increased radiation-related health concerns is prohibited
• The usage or production of any weapons capable of spreading radioactive contamination over any area is prohibited
• Only the intended recipient of an encoded message is permitted to decode it

How's that?

+1

[tryrar]

I'll go for this version of the treaty.

Proposed Arstotzka-Moskurg War Treaty

• The intentional usage of any solid, gaseous or liquid acidic, paralytic, or nerve agent that can directly harm humans on humans is prohibited
• The intentional usage of any weapon that utilizes harmful natural or engineered diseases that can directly harm humans on humans is prohibited
• The intentional usage of any weapon that causes radioactive contamination higher than background radiation such that it causes increased radiation-related health concerns is prohibited
• The usage or production of any weapons capable of spreading radioactive contamination over any area is prohibited
• Only the intended recipient of an encoded message is permitted to decode it

How's that?

+1

+1

[andrea]

I just noticed,  we added a new article about radiation with more well defined wording,   but the old one is still there. Is that an oversight? Either way, as long as it is interpreted sensibly, it is not a big deal
+1