NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you want some little nation leeching your space technologies that you spent so much money and time on?

NO!

Vote against the International Space Initiative.

Nations should follow their own space programs, not steal tech from larger nations because they're too lazy to do it themselves.

We concur with voting against the ISI. Our religion dictates that we were not meant to be amongst the stars, that we were merely meant to gaze at them. Forcing UN nations into a space exploration committee would damn all members of the UN to Hell!


Akmed Teriff
Aooogah's Ambassador to the UN

I and my government are in wholehearted agreement with you comrades. The proposal is an abomination! The UN is a legislative body, and should not control the resources of agencies in individual governments!

Limm Dhammista
Chief of ONSI (Opium Narcs Space Initiative)
People's Republic of Opium Narcs

Rational Self Interest favors space exploration, and would be interested in voluntary international collaboration to that end, but of course we do not want a whole new organization outside the UN, of unknown structure(!), to have control over our manufacturing, education and defense.

Look. We are still allowed to maintain our own space progarms(or at least there is a big loophole which allows us to do so), and what can a little nation do with advanced tech anywhen?

Not much.

Vote No on this and all other intrusive legislation which usurps national prerogatives.

I am compelled to vote against it myself, due to the intrusion on the tech tree end of things.

While Blamgolia has a strong and well-funded space program, we also feel that we should not have something we didn't work for ourselves, or that other nations did not work to attain.

Rational self-interest, we of Blamgolia are hard at work to create a long-range exploration vessel. At this point, we have a lunar colony, a number of vessels that can get there, and some space fighters.

What we need is a powerplant that minimizes the risk to its crew in the event of a disaster, and a means to provide supplies over the long term.

Due to the intrusion clause, our Senate has voted 213-12 against this resolution

Greets, world denizens.

Regarding this proposal, we have these comments and queries:

OOC: The idea of the ISI reminds us somewhat of the International Fleet, in Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game".

BIC: It's hard to tell from an admittedly barebones proposal how this will work in the NationStates world. We consider its wording too vague, and prefer a more precisely-worded document. Alternately, we might vote for it if somewhere in this resolution, it stipulated that other, more concrete proposals or further resolutions would be required to nail down particulars.

Parts of the proposal strike us as problematic, and were we a Terran UN nation, we would not accept the proposal unless it were presented as a resolution of intent, or these points addressed and amended:


on a committee basis

Although it's fun to bash committees just on principle, with our extensive experience of committee work (paid and volunteer), they often are the core power structure of an organization. Meaning, where the politics takes place. In this case, which is clearly a Planetary initiative rather than an international one, a collective seems far preferable to us as power structure -- immediately cutting out some of the structural and international politics of who-serves-when, and who's-more-deserving-of-special-status. Maybe a Planetary mentality and collective structure would be an improvement on the current UN, emphasizing collective importance, responsibility and participation, rather than the international economic and military rankings that seem to automatically skew countries into the do-alls, and attempt-nothings.


1. A universal collective of science, manufacturing and defense.


Again, we would prefer Planetary. "Universal" can be reinterpreted to mean many things. Also, the notion of defense, one very worthy and necessary to consider, as a planet looking outward, but as for the power above our stratosphere looking inward, is this in actuality another step toward the Reaganesque StarWars? Surely that requires more precision. Who would really be in control?


2. Cradle-to-grave education for all to ensure future generations that space is no longer regarded as a folly, but as a serious opportunity to utilize.


Finally, Reiki Practitioners sees a need for more work on this concept. What is meant by cradle-to-grave education? Lifetime propaganda? Re-education camps for the apathetic or doubters? Where is free choice in education, for those who prefer other curricula? It makes one speculate that this proposal is mainly a plea from the heart that has turned dictatorial and desperate to convince a planet whether they like it or not, that it will spend money on space.

We applaud the proposal's noble utopian ideals -- we wish we'd thought of it ourselves. We just aren't keen on how it's worded, because we think that matters.

We believe therrefore that democracies especially should vote against the proposal because of its flaws, and send it back tot he drawing board for refinement. We say nay.

Freelander
Free Land of Reiki Practitioners

Any nations interested in a genuine collaborative program of space exploration and exploitation are invited to telegraph the Federation of Rational Self Interest. We are preparing a proposal - not a UN proposal, but a serious proposal for serious nations.

You realise that this bill introduces free education for your entire population, right?

Thank you comrades for bringing some of these issues to light. You have brought up many good points. I will be changing my position from FOR to AGAINST on the ISI proposal.