A case for abolishing the CWC?

[angrybellsprout]

When you sign a partial agreement, such as the CWC, the utilities of all nations involved goes up, as the costs in terms of both financial and casualtes involved in chemical weapons goes down. When both nations have their expected utilities go up because of a single event, the gap for settlement goes away.

With the gap for settlement gone, the conflict has been prolonged, as per the shift in lines mentioned in the chart.

 

[Che Guava]

What might this mean in real-life application exactly? What is the 'gap for settlement'?

 

[FoxURA]

You also might want to actually say what the CWC is.

 

[Che Guava]

I beleive he means the Chemical Weapons Convention

 

[JohnRM]

Hunh???????

 

[angrybellsprout]

What might this mean in real-life application exactly? What is the 'gap for settlement'?

x-axis is the level of settlement for each nation

y-axis is the level of utility for each nation

the gap for settlement is when the two have overlapping areas on the x-axis between nation x and y

things like the cwc or partial troop withdrawls push agument Ux(w) and Uy(w) thus prolonging the conflict as the gap for settlement goes away

pretty simple graph to read if you read the caption and think about it

 

[Babbler]

When you sign a partial agreement, such as the CWC, the utilities of all nations involved goes up, as the costs in terms of both financial and casualtes involved in chemical weapons goes down. When both nations have their expected utilities go up because of a single event, the gap for settlement goes away.

With the gap for settlement gone, the conflict has been prolonged, as per the shift in lines mentioned in the chart.

Uh-huh....

x-axis is the level of settlement for each nation

y-axis is the level of utility for each nation

the gap for settlement is when the two have overlapping areas on the x-axis between nation x and y

things like the cwc or partial troop withdrawls push agument Ux(w) and Uy(w) thus prolonging the conflict as the gap for settlement goes away

pretty simple graph to read if you read the caption and think about it

simple, you say ...

I hate economics.

 

[Perfection]

No. Planck's base unit values are not primary. It's a simple yes or no answer.

 

[mrt144]

i know that no stone must ever go unturned but chemical weapons are not a problem.

 

[nonconformist]

Hello, Garry.

 

[Che Guava]

I can read a graph fine, but interpreting it to reflect real-life decisions is a little bit trickier...Let's assume we don't all have a decent background in economics and start from the begining...

x-axis is the level of settlement for each nation

Ok, I'm not sure what the meaning of that term is, exactly, and google is failing me. Can you explain what it is and how it related to the economies of nations?

y-axis is the level of utility for each nation

Utility, as I understand it, is anything of quality to an individual/country...correct?

the gap for settlement is when the two have overlapping areas on the x-axis between nation x and y

ok.....

things like the cwc or partial troop withdrawls push agument Ux(w) and Uy(w) thus prolonging the conflict as the gap for settlement goes away

erg...ok, lost me...

pretty simple graph to read if you read the caption and think about it

Yeah...looks like...

 

[angrybellsprout]

Did you read the caption?

This isn't a graph dealing with economics, though it is a factor as it effects utility, but a graph dealing with two parties in armed conflict with each other, aka in a state of war.

Oh, and yes to the question regarding utility.

 

[Masquerouge]

I'm pretty sure there's something interesting in here, and I think I grasp it, but this is not the clearest thing I've ever seen.

 

[Che Guava]

Ok, why don't you break it down in real terms: two countries called Anada and Bermany are involved in an armed conflict, but both sides have signed a treaty saying they will not use chemical weapons. Why are they closer to peace if they rip up the treaty and et the mustard flowing?

 

[angrybellsprout]

The chart above explains that question.

 

[Warman17]

Iraq began using chemical weapons in 1983 and the war continued with Iran for another 5 years after that.

 

[angrybellsprout]

when did iran start using weapons

 

[LightFang]

The chart above explains that question.

No, this is the part where you explain your graph, which looks suspiciously like a Demand/Supply graph showing equilibrium, the surplus that would exist if a price floor were set, and the shortage that would exist if a price ceiling were set.

 

[Perfection]

The chart above explains that question.

That chart neglects Kant's Formula of Autonomy.

 

[angrybellsprout]

Instead it focuses on the rational actor.