A case for abolishing the CWC?

Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
475
Location
la República de Tejas


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.
 
What might this mean in real-life application exactly? What is the 'gap for settlement'?
 
You also might want to actually say what the CWC is.
 
I beleive he means the Chemical Weapons Convention
 
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
 


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.
 
i know that no stone must ever go unturned but chemical weapons are not a problem.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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?
 
Iraq began using chemical weapons in 1983 and the war continued with Iran for another 5 years after that.
 
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.
 
Instead it focuses on the rational actor.
 
Top Bottom