Actaea

That's precisely the wrong conclusion. If someone uses a despicable, prohibited tactic, there's no need to want to use that tactic yourself and emulate them.

This isn't entirely my conclusion. I mainly wanted to emphasize that those who wouldn't have used chemical weapons anyway will be the ones who suffer the most. And the mini-goal – to protect countries from chemical weapons – won't be achieved. Because all potential aggressors (except Ventorum) are outside the jurisdiction of the First Council and cannot be controlled by it (here I'm speaking again as a player, understanding who the potential aggressor is in the current world order). So, where's the logic?

But if there's a conflict between two countries, and one Security Council supports the first, and the other supports the second, then that's bad.

In a rare case. Because in most cases, the idea of the Security Council is precisely to calm everyone down without military intervention. That is, problems will arise if the warring countries do not accept any resolutions regarding themselves and continue to fight. Then the Councils will have to take real action, and that's when they can contradict each other. But that's a really difficult case. Besides, frankly speaking, if such a dilemma arises, it merely underscores a simple fact: a single, first Security Council would not have handled the situation any better. Because it is not even capable of looking at the situation from different perspectives, due to the more limited number of countries present there. So, having two Councils in this regard at least does not worsen the situation.

The problem isn't with the Security Councils; the problem is that they are not pacifists in practice.

And this problem is easily solved for the Second Council (come and make pacifist decisions. Most of the countries of Actaea will most likely accept such decisions), but it is not solvable for the First.