[Donaldson Tan]

Check out my presentation and post your comments.

[FeLiXe]

in my opinion too many pictures and too little facts. does not seem very serious.

[Donaldson Tan]

LOL.. It was supposed to be a 5 minutes presentation..

In fact, I was told too much content. Maybe because the people evaluating my presentation in college are chemical engineers. In fact, they were looking forward to a technical presentation on reaction engineering or fluid mechanics. I decided to be unorthodox and did a non-technical presentation on "non-lethal weapons".

What facts you want? I can supplement you.. OK.. I will post something more like an essay here soon. I love writing about international law.

[mike]

I like your presentation. It is concise and easy to read, not too much written information which is good and lots of pictures.

My only comments: SLIDE 4 "... pinned me own...." should be "..pinned me down..." (unless this is deliberate?)

You have a mixture of times new roman and arial (although this is a minor point and you could leave it)

Good luck with the presentation 

[FeLiXe]

I guess it is kind of nice

I would not need all those injured people though

and then I don't like this big "no" in the end. generally I think people should always acknowledge that they can't be sure about things.

It does not seem like people would give up weapons alltogether. So I would rather be hit with a non lethal weapon than with a lethal one.

[Donaldson Tan]

It is "NO" for now actually.

In fact, since the end of WWII, the only legislature that requires weapon technology to be somewhat humane is the Geneva Convention. However, it does not require all member states to evaluate new weapon technology, but only those weapon technology that existed when the Geneva Convention was signed. This additional requirement to evaluate new weapon technology is in fact known as the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention which so few states has ratified it. Article 35 of Additional Protocol I reads each “High Contracting Party is under an obligation to determine whether [the new weapon’s] employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the High Contracting Party.”  The Biological Weapon Convention prohibits the development and deployment of any biological weapons. It would be very difficult to argue that non-lethal biological weapons, such as certain incapacitating agents, can be justified by prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes. However, things are not so clear under the Chemical Weapon Convention.

[lemonoman]

I really really liked the presentation, until the last two slides.

First, "Oh my God" might offend some people...just a heads up

Second, that was a pretty abrupt ending.  That made me uneasy...and the fact that you didn't draw any conclusions - not even a, "I propose that more legislature be put in place to control NLWs" - it seems like the entire content of the presentation is lessened in value.  The size of the "NO" as well, threw me off.  If you had a good argument, you wouldn't need to use colour and size to make your impact

Good luck

[Donaldson Tan]

I actually explained the NO in my speech, and not on the slide. I went into details on the UN Register of Conventional Arms, the Chemical Weapon Convention and the Biological Weapon Convention to highlight how their inadequacies lead to the current state of proliferation and mis-use of NLWs.