�ݺ�ߣ

GRAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY 2013
THE FUTURE OF MILITARY WEAPONS
DISARMAMENT AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES

THE FUTURE OF MILITARY WEAPONS – STUDY GUIDE
GRAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY 2013 Page 1
1.1 History of the Committee :
The General Assembly
Despite the League of Nations failure in arbitrating the conflicts that led up to World War
II, United Nations also commonly known as the UN was established which sets the principles for
international collaboration in maintaining peace and security. Thus, an international organization
came to existence on 24 October 1945 and currently recognizes 192 member states.
All members of the United Nations are represented in the General Assemblywhich resembles
closest to a world parliament and are expected to meet on a regular basis. Each country, large or
small, rich or poor, has a single vote, however, none of the decisions taken by the Assembly are
binding. Nevertheless, the Assembly's decisions become resolutions that carry the weight of
world governmental opinion.

It affords the opportunity for countries to balance global interdependence and national
interests when addressing international problems.1
In some cases, Special and emergency
special sessions may also be convened. Each state has one vote, when a vote is taken it needs a
two-thirds majority for it to be passed.It can make recommendations to promote international
peace; international economic and social co-operation and it can promote human rights.
The General Assembly is the main deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the
United Nations in which discusses and decides on issues of international peace and security.
Because of the great number of questions it is called upon to consider, the Assembly allocates
items relevant to its work among its six Main Committees, which discuss them, seeking whe
possible to harmonize the various approaches of States, and then present to a plenary meeting of
the Assembly draft resolutions and decisions for consideration. These six Main Committees are:
DISEC (Disarmament and International Security), Economic and Financial, SOCHUM (Social,
Cultural and Humanitarian), Special Political and Decolonization, Administrative and Budgetary
and the Legal Committee.2
Each of these committees consists of equal representation from all
member states of the United Nations.
1.2 History of the Committee :
Disarmament and International Security
The First Committee was known originally as the Political and Security Committeewith .
However, the committee, quickly overwhelmed by the range of issues assigned to it, came to
focus its work on the field of disarmament. Given the importance of disarmament and, in
particular, issues of nuclear arms reduction, the General Assembly decided in the wake of the
1978 Special Session on Disarmament that the First Committee should concentrate on this topic.
Political issues were shunted to the Special Political Committee, and subsequently the title of the
First Committee was changed to "Disarmament and International Security (DISEC)."Debates
about disarmament were highly contentious during the cold war and particularly in the early
years of nuclear weapons development, when international diplomats were trying to work out a

set of rules and agreements to deal with a new and frightening topic that threatened global
survival.3
According to Article 26 of United Nations Charter, DISEC’s mandate is “to promote the
establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for
armaments of the world’s human and economic resources.”4
Under the UN Charter, all member
states and observers of the United Nations are automatically part of the first committee of the
General Assembly, and have an equal vote. Documents also require a simple majority to be
passed. With topics similar to those discussed in the Security Council, DISEC meets once a year
for a 5-week session in October.
The First Committee considers all disarmament related topics on the agenda of the
General Assembly's regular session. Annually it adopts more than 40 resolutions dealing with the
nuclear non-proliferation regime, the various proposals for regional nuclear-weapons-free zones,
nuclear test bans, all aspects of the arms trade, chemical and biological weapons, and all types
of weapons of mass destruction and conventional arms. It also considers the implementation of
existing disarmament agreements and General and Complete Disarmament.
1.3 TOPIC AREA :
FUTURISTIC WEAPON RACE
The advancement of technology has put a new scheme on the current international power,
with more conventional weapon –gunfire, grenades, etc.- becoming more affordable, countries
are searching for more lethal and more dangerous weapon. According to weapon specialized
magazine, Angkasa, from year 2014 to 2020 there is an increase of 50% military budget from all
country around the World. As new and more dangerous weapon is invented, the world now face
a graver danger than before.

Arm Race: Large scale production of Anti-Matter and Advancement of Drones
An expert from Groningen University, dr. Lars Ulrich, has stated that the world is
shifting towards smaller size devices. Mr. Ulrich also stated that while the size might be small
the potential inside the weapon is equal or even bigger. In line with Mr Ulrich statement, the
development of weapon in each country shifting into smaller, portable but more dangerous
weapon.
The notion of having more lethal weapon is smaller size becoming a worldwide issue,
when CERN -a body of Europe government specialized in energy- announced that the anti-
matter has finally been able to be produce in large specimen. Although an official statement by
CERN suggests that CERN would preserve the technology for scientific purposes, a recent
leaked diplomatic cable published by Timesleak.com suggested that European Union has bargain
with CERN to test Anti-Matter as a possible arsenal in near future. Anti-Matter which often
dubbed as future energy,is the counterparts of Matter, when both Matter and Anti-Matter meet
they will turn into pure energy. Based on Einstein calculation, one gram of Anti Matter is enough
to run New York for a week and is 20 times more powerful than Atomic bomb dropped in
Hiroshima.
Meanwhile, other leakage by Timesleak.com also suggest that Researcher has finally
been able to incorporate “ANU Algorithm” into Lethal Autonomous Robots (LARS). The
Algorithm introduce a mechanism which allow LARS to “think” meaning that they can
distinguish between hostile target and civilians. The leakage yield an international concern, with
LARS is able to eliminate target without human interference, world leaders is concerned that
LARS is violating the International Humanitarian Law and made clear that such technology
needs to be controlled even more.
Arm Race: Large scale production of Anti-Matter and Advancement of Drones
An expert from Groningen University, dr. Lars Ulrich, has stated that the world is
shifting towards smaller size devices. Mr. Ulrich also stated that while the size might be small
the potential inside the weapon is equal or even bigger. In line with Mr Ulrich statement, the
development of weapon in each country shifting into smaller, portable but more dangerous
weapon.

The notion of having more lethal weapon is smaller size becoming a worldwide issue,
when CERN -a body of Europe government specialized in energy- announced that the anti-
matter has finally been able to be produce in large specimen. Although an official statement by
CERN suggest that CERN would preserve the technology for scientific purposes, a recent leaked
diplomatic cable published by Timesleak.com suggested that European Union has bargain with
CERN to test Anti-Matter as a possible arsenal in near future. Anti-Matter which often dubbed as
future energy,is the counterparts of Matter, when both Matter and Anti-Matter meet they will
turn into pure energy. Based on Einstein calculation, one gram of Anti Matter is enough to run
New York for a week and is 20 times more powerful than Atomic bomb dropped in Hiroshima.
Meanwhile, other leakage by Timesleak.com also suggest that Researcher has finally
been able to incorporate “ANU Algorithm” into Lethal Autonomous Robots (LARS). The
Algorithm introduce a mechanism which allow LARS to “think” meaning that they can
distinguish between hostile target and civilians. The leakage yield an international concern, with
LARS is able to eliminate target without human interference, world leaders is concerned that
LARS is violating the International Humanitarian Law and made clear that such technology
needs to be controlled even more.
1.4 Proposed Solutions
1. TOTAL DISARMAMENT
The potential of Anti-matter and LARS is undoubtedly huge, perhaps more than even nuclear
weapons. As such, there is an option to impose a complete ban, in which no countries is allowed
to research or create these new weapon systems. However, several obstacles exist to impose a
complete ban.
a. A total disarmament will benefit countries that do not the capabilities to create these new
weapons in the first place. However, larger and wealthier countries with the technology
and budget to research these technologies will undoubtedly be dissatisfied. These
countries will have to be appeased before a complete ban can take place.

b. Many treaties involving weapon control have been broken in the past. Even if all
countries originally decide to follow the complete ban, how will a country that later
decides to leave the treaty be handled?
c. What if a country decides to secretly research these technologies while under the
complete ban treaty? If it manages to complete an anti-matter weapon or LARS, how will
the other countries be capable of opposing a country that has the completed weapon?
2. PARTIAL DISARMAMENT
Rather than a complete ban, it is possible to have a partial ban, in which only a few selected
countries are allowed to possess anti-matter weapons and LARS. This will create a more stable
balance of power, as wealthier countries will be able to create these weapons to protect
themselves and their weaker allies. Additionally, no significant difference in power will be
created between a country that has secretly created one of these weapon systems and other
countries. However, new problems will have to be solved before a partial disarmament can be
achieved.
a. Which countries will be given the authorization to possess these weapons? If only
Western countries are selected, many Eastern countries will be discontented. A balanced
number of countries from all over the world will have to be chosen.
b. How will the authorized countries be chosen? Many countries exist that possess the funds
necessary to research the required technologies, but many of those countries have also
been in constant wars and may recklessly use these systems. However, countries that
have always been completely neutral cannot be counted on to use their weapons if
necessary. A list of characteristics will have to be created to choose the authorized
countries.
c. In the future, how will additional countries be chosen? As of now, many countries are
incapable of building these new weapons. However, once these countries become further
developed, they may appeal for the permission to create these weapon systems.

3. COMPLETE OR PARTIAL BAN ON THE USE FOR MILITARY PURPOSES ONLY
These technologies do not only have military uses. Antimatter is a source of energy that has
an even greater potential than nuclear power. It can be used to provide cheap and easily
transportable source of energy for the world. The Widagdo Algorithm can also be used to
differentiate criminals (hostile targets) from normal civilians and thus can be used by law
enforcements. As such, while these systems can be on a complete or partial ban for military
purposes, countries that wish to use these systems for peaceful purposes can be allowed to
research the required technologies. However, in this case, several policies will have to be
established first.
a. It is still necessary to decide whether these systems should have a complete or partial ban
when using them for military purposes.
b. Unfortunately, these are dual-use technologies, in which systems originated from these
technologies for peaceful purposes can quickly be changed for military purposes. As
such, it is easy for a country to claim that they are only using anti-matter and LARS for
peaceful purposes when they are actually preparing them for military use. How should
such countries be treated?
4. NO RESTRICTIONS
Absolutely no treaties will be created on the restriction of research and possession on anti-matter
and LARS. Any country will be free to research and construct antimatter weapons and LARS.
While this may be the most reckless option, countries with a wish to possess the freedom to
choose their own laws may request to have no international policies on these weapon systems.
1.5 Bloc Positions
1. Weapon Developer Countries
Country who categorized as weapon developer and supplier has shown support to the
development of futuristic weapon. Russia center for weapon development, Chernovyl, has
initiate program “Vladivostok” which aims the creation of small scale nuclear handguns. United
States of America as the biggest spender in the world for military has created several portfolio

for futuristic weapon, including a fully autonomous Lethal Autonomous Robots. Both country
also indicated that weapon development is a part of country national interest, thus there is no
need to limit ones country weapon creation.
2. European Union
Responding recent leaks that pointed EU is developing Anti-matters as a possible arsenal,
president of the European Council, has issued that EU always supporting the idea of world peace
and would like to reiterate its commitment. However, Mr Leroy has also stated that it is
important that in order to maintain peace in regional level, approach using “bigger stick than
other country is necessary”. Adding the fact that EU had the biggest particle collider, a device to
create Anti-matters, in the world. EU will continue the development of anti-matters as Anti-
Matters can serve as a symbol of powerhouse to EU.
3. Alliance of Weapon Free-Zone Countries
This countries, who from the past has torn by fear of war and conflict, reject the idea of
having a new kind and more deadly weapon invented. Countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan
whose land has been destroyed by the past war has clearly oppose the creation of Lethal
Autonomous Robots and Anti-Matters. This country believe that the current weapon had already
cause a huge blow to them and see no point of having a new array of weapon with more deadly
effect created.
1.6 For Further Research:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html
http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/
http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/
http://www.icanw.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/nwcguide2012.pdf
http://www.acronym.org.uk/map

�ݺ�ߣ

FUTURE MILITARY WEAPONS study guide

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to FUTURE MILITARY WEAPONS study guide (8)

FUTURE MILITARY WEAPONS study guide