NationStates Jolt Archive

There is currently a proposal that the Holy Empire of Agnostiks submitted to the United Nations concerning the reductions and final elimination of nuclear weapons from members of the UN. We would like to encourage everyone to at least look at it and if you feel that it is a good idea, please refer it to your UN delegate so that it may receive the support necessary to pass into vote as a resolution.

NOTE: This proposal is not the typical call to disarm, it is very thourough and worthy of consideration.

The resolution is known as : Disarm Nuclear Weapons.

The proposal is now on the first page of the list of proposals. This has until Wednesday to be endorsed. Thank you for all Consideration and I am sure that the entire UN, as well as the "world" will benefit from this proposal.

Edit: There are two typos in this proposal that have come to out attention:
1st- In Section 2, there are sentences pertaining to Real Life events. These sentences should be removed, and can be without altering the purpose or effectiveness of the proposal.
2nd- In Section 3, subsection D there is an error in the math of the disarmament rate. The correct number of years is 6, not 8 as 15%x 8 years = 120 %.

Es tut mir leid.

How can you see the reduction of military deterants a good thing? If our nation had no nuclear weaponry, then we would be defenseless against all other nataions that have nuclear weaponry. In addition, many of our hard working uranium miners would lose jobs as the demand for uranium would plummet. All in all, I believe that the disarmament of nuclear weaponry is a poor decision, as well as a pipe dream.
Sponsored by VaultTech

How odd, George hasn't made any posts :?. I doubt it will get the necessary support, though.

If you would notice, G e o r g e II is NOT the proposer of this idea.
As it is, there are purely peaceful applications of the mined uranium from the nations around the globe. There is no need to assume that the only use for uranium is weaponry.
I would also like to point out that there is a clause in the proposal to call for other (non UN nations) to rid themselves of all nuclear weapons. True, some nations will not comply, however, you must remember that there are just as effective ways of killing people :( with non-nuclear weapons. Are you familiar with the "Daisy-Cutter"? That weapon, in use today by many governments around the world, is acclaimed to have the same potency as (albeit small) nuclear weapons.
By these more "conventional" means young nations (who most likely do NOT have nuclear weapons anyways) will be able to defend themselves, as will the older establishments. An eye for an eye is not good international policy. Yes users and proprietors of nuclear arms should be discouraged, but to nuke them would be wrecking unnecessary havok on both nations. The International repercussions are a deterrent of using nuclear arms as it is.
I am not calling for the outright ban of war. History has shown that the use of nuclear weapons leads to long term environmental and safetly problems.
And to address the reason that The Holy Empire of Agnostiks may appear to have few posts, as a member of the A.S.E. we routinely participate (since having joined) in the forums on the offsite forum.
We at the Holy Empire of Agnostiks fully understand your concerns, and if you have questions, feel free to ask.

As I stated previously it would reduce, not remove, our uranium mining, which is the major source of economy in Vault 21. And you say that it wouldcall for other nations to disarm themselves? I heartily laugh at this. Any truely warlike nation would scoff at the UN provisions, and strike when the time is ripe. The only way that one could ever have a full nuclear disarmament enacted is by show of a more terrifying force, and then people will claim that this new weapon must be removed as well.
Sponsored by VaultTech

I think the nation of Oakeshottland expressed it best:
As a piece of advice, talking curtly to the older, more experienced, and more heavily armed is unwise.
....
And I suggest you don't make us come over there, pup. Our dominions could wipe their shoes on you. The new nations should learn some respect early. It is better for them.

Without our nuclear weapons, we would be easy prey for larger and more aggressive nations. No, I don't think we'll be giving them up now, or ever. Without the constant threat of thermonuclear devastation, what's to stop larger nations from invading our territory? Or yours?

Honestly, the only thing preserving national borders is the ability to destroy them.

Don't make me come over there.

"Without our nuclear weapons, we would be easy prey for larger and more aggressive nations. No, I don't think we'll be giving them up now, or ever. Without the constant threat of thermonuclear devastation, what's to stop larger nations from invading our territory? Or yours?

Honestly, the only thing preserving national borders is the ability to destroy them. "


If you read the proposal closesly, it does not call for the absolute immedeate disarmament. It calls for a reduction of the weapons over the next 8 years. It also states that if the ruling body in the government does not see it necessary to disarm, for the EXPRESSED reason that a nuclear threat or crisis is at hand. If your nation never fully disarms, because you beleive there is an ever present nuclear crisis, that is the individual governments decision. Some nations may find it appropriate after a certain amount of time to completely disarm.
Another point I would like to make is that if your nation bombs the hell out of another, or you youselves get bombed, it would be pointless to try to resurrect a nation in an area of nuclear fallout. All the workers would have died as well. Whether from the incendiary blast or cancer caused by fallout, your people will die. The workers will have then become their own means of death, and not by choice. If you are to put a price on human lives what would it be? Is it truly impossible to have an economy shift what its primary sector is? Eventually the uranium deposits will deplete anyways, so why not start the shift to another economic market sooner rather tahn after you realize it is gone? This would also create a longer lasting source of uranium for energy production, or whatever else its [peaceful] purpose may be.
And as addressed previously, We fully realize that non-UN nations may very well refuse to comply or even begin to disarm. " True, some nations will not comply, however, you must remember that there are just as effective ways of killing people with non-nuclear weapons." This may mean that Mutually Assured Destruction is the only peace keeping force in this world.
There is no reason to hold and maintain nuclear weapons in a modern world. I personally would feel safer knowing that a huge body of respected nations does not and is not going to nuke my neighbor, or me.

Another point I would like to make is that if your nation bombs the hell out of another, or you youselves get bombed, it would be pointless to try to resurrect a nation in an area of nuclear fallout.

That argument is certainly not oging to get a lot a acceptance around here.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/12485/page=display_region

Since we actually live in a region of nuclear fallout, we can tell you from personal experience that rebuilding is no more pointless than any other aspect of human endeavor.

When faced with necessity, the only thing which is actually pointless is to not try. Once willpower and cooperation are engaged, the limits of possibility far exceed the reaches of what one person can do alone.

In any case, it seems clear that your country has extended the concept of futility far beyond what is warranted. Perhaps you should review the necessity for your proposal with more hope and less despair.

Good night, everyone.

This is a nice proposal- the only problem is that there are many nations not within the UN who have nuclear weapons. This proposal would eventually leave the UN defenceless against such nations. We do not support this proposal.

Eventually the uranium deposits will deplete anyways, so why not start the shift to another economic market sooner rather tahn after you realize it is gone? This would also create a longer lasting source of uranium for energy production, or whatever else its [peaceful] purpose may be.

That's absurd. First of all, you've doubtless noticed that the world is over 4 billion years old, and yet the core of the planet is still hot! This is because there's a lot of Uranium. Really a lot of Uranium. To put that in perspective, a ball of iron 12.8 million kilometers across would cool off in only fifty thousand years (thanks, Newton!), and we still have a molten core after passing that benchmark a thousand times over.

So there's a lot of Uranium to go around. More Uranium than is required to smelt the entire seventh part of the lands and waters into a uniform pool of darkened glass. Mining it for weaponry is simply never going to deplete it in any meaningful extent. Not because the amount in the planet is not finite - but because that amount is estimated to be 2.3 tons per square kilometer in the top 30 cm of soil alone, average over the entire planet.

Since I can make a nuclear weapon with far less than a thousand kilograms of uranium - I fail to see how our weapons stockpiles are in any danger of depleting that resource in any meaningful degree.

However, even if we were to accept your notion that somehow we could run out of uranium before we were done with it, what would we most logically then do? Well, when we run power plants on it, we consume uranium. But when we have weapons stockpiles, the uranium simply sits there. Yeah, if we felt that our uranium reserves were threatened it would be the peaceful applications which must surely be abandoned.

Teach a man to use nuclear fire, and he'll be cold in a week. But set a man on nuclear fire and he'll glow for millenia to come.

Don't make me come over there.

Another point I would like to make is that if your nation bombs the hell out of another, or you youselves get bombed, it would be pointless to try to resurrect a nation in an area of nuclear fallout. All the workers would have died as well. Whether from the incendiary blast or cancer caused by fallout, your people will die. The workers will have then become their own means of death, and not by choice. If you are to put a price on human lives what would it be?
As is pointed out by my fellow nation of Fallout California, we are enduring the process of reconstructing our lands, lands that our forefathers promised us would be ours to rebuild. Nuclear war dosn't make the land eternally inhospitable, and the trace remains of workers and miners can be repaired and siad workers and miners can be rebuilt as well.
Is it truly impossible to have an economy shift what its primary sector is? Eventually the uranium deposits will deplete anyways, so why not start the shift to another economic market sooner rather tahn after you realize it is gone? This would also create a longer lasting source of uranium for energy production, or whatever else its [peaceful] purpose may be.
You do realize that as long as their is a core to this planet, ther will be uranium to mine, and even afterwards we can make it. In addition the warlike uses of uranium allow our deposits to last longer by allowing us dominion over other people's uranium mines, whereas the peaceful uses do nothing but power cities and use uranium.
And as addressed previously, We fully realize that non-UN nations may very well refuse to comply or even begin to disarm. " True, some nations will not comply, however, you must remember that there are just as effective ways of killing people with non-nuclear weapons." This may mean that Mutually Assured Destruction is the only peace keeping force in this world.
There is no reason to hold and maintain nuclear weapons in a modern world. I personally would feel safer knowing that a huge body of respected nations does not and is not going to nuke my neighbor, or me.
Mutially assured destruction may not be the only way, but as long as nations such as Starkeria remain in this world, I for one will not put my weapons away for any reason. Some nations believe that only force is the answer, others believe that peaceful solutions exist. And you can believe in the peaceful solutions, and I will applaud your efforts... until your peaceful solution is forced on me, because then it is a piece of expansionist propaganda cleaverly disguised as a peaceful proposal.
Sponsored by VaultTech

perhaps you missed the thread a couple weeks ago about non un member nations hoping to overthrow the un? if the UN bans nukes, then you would fall prey quite quickly to all of the seperatist nations out there who still have thiers, LIKE ME.... granted we are peace loving but many arent.

perhaps you missed the thread a couple weeks ago about non un member nations hoping to overthrow the un? if the UN bans nukes, then you would fall prey quite quickly to all of the seperatist nations out there who still have thiers, LIKE ME.... granted we are peace loving but many arent.
See! This is precisely what we vault dwellers hope to avoid! First you people suggest that our children can't defend us, and then that we shouldn't make weapons to defend ourselves with! Do you wish to make the UN a group of toothless kittens who roll over and play dead when any psycopath chooses to threaten us?

the problem with uranium, used in bombs and nuclear reactors, it that it required uranium 235. the fissionable isotope of uranium. plutonium (another fissionable material) can be produced from U-238.

"The reserve in Uranium 235 may be sufficient to power the world's 575 nuclear power plants for only 30 year or so." -> http://www.es.usyd.edu.au/geology/people/staff/prey/Teaching/Geol-1002/HTML.Lect9/sld006.htm

for what its worth...

Uh...

First of all, good luck fusing plutonium. However, it is a quite good material for fission. http://www.bilderberg.org/hbomb.htm They have a decent description of the various kinds of nukes.

Secondly, materials for Fusion weapons are very common and can be manufactured, such as deuterium and tritium.

Thirdly, as has been mentioned, it makes us defenseless from other nuclear powers by the time we are supposed to have disarmed. Even ABMS are not foolproof and can be defeated through shear volume of fire or creative delivery systems.

Next, we would lose the leverage that nukes provide us when dealing with rogue nations. It's nice to be able to fall back on "Submit or your ass is glass" when all other diplomatic efforts, including the threat of invasion, fail to bring them down.

Another thing, we employ a rather large number of people in the construction and oversight of nuclear weapons. Those jobs would be lost should we be forced to disarm.

This is why Xha'dam opposes this proposal.

One thing that I think is being missed here is that the nuclear device serves a primarily defensive role in modern warfare. A war of conquest, while quite imaginable and feasible with "conventional" weapons, is nearly completely pointless with a nuclear exchange.

While rebuilding after a nuclear detonation is not pointless, it is costly and difficult. Even the most bloodthirsty of conquistadors will balk at the proposition of having to wait eighty years to gain a usable parcel of land from a conquest - even if it was relatively bloodless because you atomically pasteurized the entire country before moving in.

On the other hand, nuclear weapons represent a simple and effective method of defensive deterent. What nation would risk its own anihilation by invading a nuclear power? What could they hope to gain that would be worth you pulling that kill switch on them?

When a nation conducts a buildup of conventional weapons and soldiers, it represents the sacrifice of a tremendous amount of resources. Those soldiers could be farmers, scientists, factory workers or novelists. Those fuel cells could power light and warmth were they not squandered on plasma rifles. Indeed, a heavy investment in conventional arms pretty much guarantees that a nation must go to war simply to justify the expense if nothing else. Nuclear weapons can up the scale of war without actually demanding a constant investment of personel into the process.

A nuclear weapon isn't forever - but it is for several hundred years. This means that the military investment can be very low while still having the costs of invading your country be very high. I should hope that we could all see the benefits of such a position.

If noone has a high investment in weaponry, noone has a severe impetus to invade other nations. If everyone has nuclear weapons, then there is a strong counter incentive towards invading those sovereign territories.

The worst excesses of war happened because nations believed that other nations did not have nuclear arms and had an overabundance of conventional weaponry. In order to make a truly peaceful world, the reverse must hold. We must reduce the so-called "conventional" weaponry and ensure that everyone knows that we all have nuclear weapons.

Good night, everyone.

One thing that I think is being missed here is that the nuclear device serves a primarily defensive role in modern warfare. A war of conquest, while quite imaginable and feasible with "conventional" weapons, is nearly completely pointless with a nuclear exchange.

While rebuilding after a nuclear detonation is not pointless, it is costly and difficult. Even the most bloodthirsty of conquistadors will balk at the proposition of having to wait eighty years to gain a usable parcel of land from a conquest - even if it was relatively bloodless because you atomically pasteurized the entire country before moving in.

On the other hand, nuclear weapons represent a simple and effective method of defensive deterent. What nation would risk its own anihilation by invading a nuclear power? What could they hope to gain that would be worth you pulling that kill switch on them?

When a nation conducts a buildup of conventional weapons and soldiers, it represents the sacrifice of a tremendous amount of resources. Those soldiers could be farmers, scientists, factory workers or novelists. Those fuel cells could power light and warmth were they not squandered on plasma rifles. Indeed, a heavy investment in conventional arms pretty much guarantees that a nation must go to war simply to justify the expense if nothing else. Nuclear weapons can up the scale of war without actually demanding a constant investment of personel into the process.

A nuclear weapon isn't forever - but it is for several hundred years. This means that the military investment can be very low while still having the costs of invading your country be very high. I should hope that we could all see the benefits of such a position.

If noone has a high investment in weaponry, noone has a severe impetus to invade other nations. If everyone has nuclear weapons, then there is a strong counter incentive towards invading those sovereign territories.

The worst excesses of war happened because nations believed that other nations did not have nuclear arms and had an overabundance of conventional weaponry. In order to make a truly peaceful world, the reverse must hold. We must reduce the so-called "conventional" weaponry and ensure that everyone knows that we all have nuclear weapons.

Good night, everyone.

Good points. Especially considering the UN is meant as a peace-keeping organization.

Eventually the uranium deposits will deplete anyways, so why not start the shift to another economic market sooner rather tahn after you realize it is gone? This would also create a longer lasting source of uranium for energy production, or whatever else its [peaceful] purpose may be.

That's absurd. First of all, you've doubtless noticed that the world is over 4 billion years old, and yet the core of the planet is still hot! This is because there's a lot of Uranium. Really a lot of Uranium. To put that in perspective, a ball of iron 12.8 million kilometers across would cool off in only fifty thousand years (thanks, Newton!), and we still have a molten core after passing that benchmark a thousand times over.

So there's a lot of Uranium to go around. More Uranium than is required to smelt the entire seventh part of the lands and waters into a uniform pool of darkened glass. Mining it for weaponry is simply never going to deplete it in any meaningful extent. Not because the amount in the planet is not finite - but because that amount is estimated to be 2.3 tons per square kilometer in the top 30 cm of soil alone, average over the entire planet.

Since I can make a nuclear weapon with far less than a thousand kilograms of uranium - I fail to see how our weapons stockpiles are in any danger of depleting that resource in any meaningful degree.

However, even if we were to accept your notion that somehow we could run out of uranium before we were done with it, what would we most logically then do? Well, when we run power plants on it, we consume uranium. But when we have weapons stockpiles, the uranium simply sits there. Yeah, if we felt that our uranium reserves were threatened it would be the peaceful applications which must surely be abandoned.

Teach a man to use nuclear fire, and he'll be cold in a week. But set a man on nuclear fire and he'll glow for millenia to come.

Don't make me come over there.

You are joking, right?

If there was that much Uranium in the earth, it would explode in seconds as the chain reaction overwhelmed the release of energy.

It has to do with D * P = T. Ortherwise known as Density times Pressure equals Temperature. Basic high school physics. The amount of Uranium that can be used in nuclear reactors(235) is limited in amount.

Please, don't say dumb things.

the DSH will vote against this if it comes to vote - two of our primary economies are uranium mining and weapons manufacturing...

Moreover, our nuclear weapons stockpile has eliminated the need to support a significant army for national defence, lowering the burden on the tax payer.

Moreover, the proposal should never reach quorum because it refers to OOC events which may have never happened in-game - we (as in the DSH) have no idea of this cold war between Russia and the USA which is described in this proposal.

Secondly, what is defined as a "nuclear threat or crisis?" This could mean anything. The UN has received countless threats from non)-UN nations stating their intention to launch nuclear weaponry, and I'm sure they will continue to do so, effectively removing any anticipated authority this proposal is intended to carry.

Thirdly, we resent the idea that Hirotan taxpayers money will be used by the UN. What our citizens might willingly contribute towards the maintenance, upkeep and development of our nuclear arsenal are to be reapportioned for disposal by the Disarmament Committee? This, fellow members, is not acceptable to us.

The DSH will campaign and argue tirelessly against this proposal should it reach quorum with the objective of putting this proposal where it belongs - in the bin.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)
http://www.nationstates.net/images/un_member.gif For the region of cm4rums (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/32808/page=display_region/region=cm4rums)

Again, I realize that there are RL events in the proposal, an oversite that has drawn much critisism. However the offending sentences may be removed without altering the purpose of the proposal. And to address the beleif that the UN will be using your taxes: No. They will not. Each country will be charged with the task of complying on their own.
Please refer to all of the above posts before you post to see if your questions have already been addressed

It won't work because of MAD.
MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction.

Basically, it's the principle that one nation stands nothing to gain my nuking a nuclear power, as they will be nuked right back.
I tried a similar proposal (to reduce nuclear arms), and it didn't work. People like their nukes.

If there was that much Uranium in the earth, it would explode in seconds as the chain reaction overwhelmed the release of energy.

Um... no. According to the Uranium Chemical Factsheet, that's the real number:

http://www.speclab.com/elements/uranium.htm

It has to do with D * P = T. Ortherwise known as Density times Pressure equals Temperature. Basic high school physics. The amount of Uranium that can be used in nuclear reactors(235) is limited in amount.

Highschool Physics was invented by Isaac Newton. According to him, a molten ball of iron the size of the earth would cool off in fifty thousand years.

Here's a little description:

http://www.genesismission.org/science/mod3_SunlightSolarHeat/UnderstandingOfSun/

Please, don't say dumb things.

I'm not the one saying dumb things here.

Don't make me come over there.

The Uranium Isotope necessary for a fission reaction is U-235, which makes up about 0.7 % of the uranium on earth. Is it really a nuclear reaction that keeps the earth's core warm? or is it the heat released from the decay if radioactive materials. there is a HUGE difference.

anyways, this topic was not meant to discuss physics...

Whilst we in Orini, commend the admirable intention of ridding the world of nuclear weapons and making the world a safer place, we agree with many of our colleagues that, in practice, the only real deterrent to aggresive rogue-states using nuclear weapons, is for UN countries to have their own and therefore threaten them with their own annihililation,

We would love to live in a world without war, where countries co-exist peacefully and work for the good of humanity. Until that day comes however, we have to live in the world as it is, with the necessary evil of nuclear defence. Sad as it may be, we cannot support this proposal.

Is it really a nuclear reaction that keeps the earth's core warm? or is it the heat released from the decay if radioactive materials. there is a HUGE difference.

Is this some kind of brand new physical chemistry? Last we checked, radioactive decay was a nuclear reaction. Nuclear reactions come in two very basic types: Fusion (where particles join together), and Fission (where particles break apart).

Fission reactions incluclude nuclear reactors and the original atomic bombs, but also include radioactive decay.

The world does not literally have an atomic bomb in the middle, but it is kept molten hot for millions, even billions of years because of radioactive decay - a long term and uncontrolled form of Fission. So yes, it's a nuclear reaction, and there is no difference.

anyways, this topic was not meant to discuss physics...

You have made two arguments:

One is that we would be safer with less nuclear weaponry available. Kappastan completely disagrees. Our conventional army exists only as maintenence workers to properly store, protect, and maintain our nuclear arsenal. Without the nuclear arsenal we would be unable to defend ourselves and would have to either abandon social programs to fund a new army or face extermination at the hands of regional enemies.

The other is a series of physical and chemical pronouncements about the relative prevelence and utility of radioactives in our world. These are false on the face of it. If you retreat into matters of fact, we will correct you.

So far you have matters of opinion, which we disagree with; and matters of fact, which have been successfully disproven.

We suggest that you abandon this proposal. No good can come of it.

Good night, everyone.

Thank you for pointing out that nuclear decay are a form of a nuclear reaction. It was a simple oversight of mine not to have said more explicitly what i meant. The decay of radioactive materials, alpha, beta, and gamma, are not the reactions that cause the release of energy in atomic bombs, or in nuclear reactors. The great mass of uranium that exists is able to create heat from these smaller reactions, however if you were to attempt to create a bomb out of this material it would he a huge chunk that most likely could not be mobile much less used as an explosive weapon. The fission that occurs in bombs and energy plants is much much different from simple nuclear decay.

The decay of radioactive materials, alpha, beta, and gamma, are not the reactions that cause the release of energy in atomic bombs, or in nuclear reactors.

Actually, yes it is. Seriously.

That's what "critical mass" is. You see, the rate of radioactive decay increases with temperature. But the nuclear reaction of decay also creates heat. This means that the more uranium you put into a pile, the warmer it will be, and thus the faster it will radioactively decay - which will make it warmer. The counter reaction is that heat is also dissipating into the environment, which is cooling the uranium off and slowing it down.

If the increase in temperature gets big enough, the cycle extends beyond the means of the external environment to cool it down. Then the temperature and reaction rate gets biggger and bigger.

With enough uranium in a confined space, you can have some pretty sweet explosions.

Good night, everyone.

[OOC: there's a place in Africa where there's just naturally enough uranium in a pile for it to have reached critical mass on its own - people who go there get radiation sickness. Not because someone dropped a bomb, but because it's just naturally got a lot of uranium.]

The decay of radioactive materials, alpha, beta, and gamma, are not the reactions that cause the release of energy in atomic bombs, or in nuclear reactors.

Actually, yes it is. Seriously.

That's what "critical mass" is. You see, the rate of radioactive decay increases with temperature. But the nuclear reaction of decay also creates heat. This means that the more uranium you put into a pile, the warmer it will be, and thus the faster it will radioactively decay - which will make it warmer. The counter reaction is that heat is also dissipating into the environment, which is cooling the uranium off and slowing it down.

If the increase in temperature gets big enough, the cycle extends beyond the means of the external environment to cool it down. Then the temperature and reaction rate gets biggger and bigger.

With enough uranium in a confined space, you can have some pretty sweet explosions.

Good night, everyone.

[OOC: there's a place in Africa where there's just naturally enough uranium in a pile for it to have reached critical mass on its own - people who go there get radiation sickness. Not because someone dropped a bomb, but because it's just naturally got a lot of uranium.]

of course there is radioactive decay going on in the large reactions. That is the nature of radioactive materials. Critical mass is not a concept that is new to me either. Critical mass is the mass necessary to maintain the fission (in this case) reaction. My point is that uranium 235 is the material necessary to build atomic bombs.

from http://howstuffworks.lycoszone.com/nuclear-power1.htm

"Uranium-235 has an interesting property that makes it useful for both nuclear power production and for nuclear bomb production. U-235 decays naturally, just as U-238 does, by alpha radiation. U-235 also undergoes spontaneous fission a small percentage of the time. However, U-235 is one of the few materials that can undergo induced fission. If a free neutron runs into a U-235 nucleus, the nucleus will absorb the neutron without hesitation, become unstable and split immediately." ... "In order for these properties of U-235 to work, a sample of uranium must be enriched so that it contains 2 percent to 3 percent or more of uranium-235. Three-percent enrichment is sufficient for use in a civilian nuclear reactor used for power generation. Weapons-grade uranium is composed of 90-percent or more U-235."

And from http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/uranium.html

"The property of uranium important for nuclear weapons and nuclear power is its ability to fission, or split into two lighter fragments when bombarded with neutrons releasing energy in the process. Of the naturally-occuring uranium isotopes, only uranium-235 can sustain a chain reaction-- a reaction in which each fission produces enough neutrons to trigger another, so that the fission process is maintained without any external source of neutrons.(3) In contrast, uranium-238 cannot sustain a chain reaction, but it can be converted to plutonium-239, which can.(4) Plutonium-239, virtually non-existent in nature, was used in the first atomic bomb tested July 16, 1945 and the one dropped on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945."

Also http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/614_15.html

"Fission occurs with slow neutrons in the relatively rare isotope uranium-235 (the only naturally occurring fissile material), which must be separated from the plentiful isotope uranium-238 for its various uses."

And http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fission.html#c2 (scroll down)

"In the 1930s, German physicists/chemists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman attempted to create transuranic elements by bombarding uranium with neutrons. Rather than the heavy elements they expected, they got several unidentified products. When they finally identified one of the products as Barium-141 [...]"

I hope that I have gotten my point across this time.

OOC ---> The place in Africa, that you pointed out does have a great concentration of radioactive materials. there was not however a nuclear explosion, the type generated by bombs was there? i have also searched for this region and could not find information pertaining to it. If in fact it does exist please point it out.

I know that this debate over the physics concerning uranium probobly isn't over, i desire that this thread please go back to the original discussion about the proposal. Start a new thread somewhere so we can debate the issues concerning physics. Please, not here.

Getting back on subject...

Has anyone considered forming Nuclear Weapon Free Zones, ala real life? Nuclear Weapon Free Zones currently cover all of the southern hemisphere and Southeast Asia in the real world, so I think they could work here.

If I were to draw up a proposal for this, would you guys be interested.

If you wish to create nuclear free zones, i would imagine that you are just looking for voluntary members, so you should create a region and in the world factbook entry make sure that you state that the region is a nuclear free zone and advertise it on forums so thaty ou can get people interested.

This is a nice proposal- the only problem is that there are many nations not within the UN who have nuclear weapons. This proposal would eventually leave the UN defenceless against such nations. We do not support this proposal.

this nation right here has the right idea. if the UN was to pass this, only UN nations would have to comply. that would in fact leave all the UN nations open and defenseless against the nations with nuclear weapons. this may not seem like a problem to most nations in the UN because the UN can use a coalition force to help that one nation, but most nations are entirly against this idea. nations need nukes, and this bill will go unpassed i can assure everyone this.

bracia- The lack of nuclear weapons does not mean that we are defensless. everyone belongs to a region, and for the members of the UN, as you said, could be protected and defended by a willing coalition. For a nation 4 days old, you sure seem to be of the opinion that you hols a lot of influence. also, you do not definitively know that most nations are against this idea. I imagine that *most* nations have not even looked at this post. yet you state that :
"this may not seem like a problem to most nations in the UN because the UN can use a coalition force to help that one nation, but most nations are entirly against this idea."
So who do you beleive the majority belongs to, because it cannot be both.
"nations need nukes" <-- that is exactly the attitude that prevents people from seeing that in todays world, nukes are not important. the attitudes that prevent ideas like this from coming forth and becoming prominent. The fact of the matter is, you do not know the ramifications of such an act. we can theorize all we want, but why not take that step? it was said in a previous post that the only way to get nukes banned is to create a more destructive weapon, and then nukes will go the way of biological weapons. The UN voted to ban biological weapons. I ask, are nukes any less of a threat to countries and the world than biological weapons that they were banned? So if nuclear weapons are banned, then maybe a new weapon that will subdue all other nations will be developed. So then the UN nations, as long as they can, control this new weapon as the new "bargaining chip". So then this too is speculative thought, but just as probable as non-UN nations taking over the world. Keep in mind that noone here is all-knowing. I for one, am trying to make the world a safer place. This is how i have chosen to attempt to do so, and I am certain that others are preaching as they see fit.

Edit: It has also come to my attention that the nation of Bracia seems to think that the correct way of dealing with mentally disabled human beings is to enslave them. If this is Bracia's school of thought, does this lend any credibility to his argument here? They are different subjects, but obviously his ideals and how he thinks people should be treated are quite radical in some senses.

Yeah, that's a brilliant idea - we'll just outsource our nuclear holocaust potential to our non-UN affiliated neighbors! I'm sure that they'd come in and lend a hand by raining hellfire on beligerent nations invading our territory.

This is one of those notions that probably sounded a lot better when you were drunk. I suggest that instead of having any more of these notions - that you just drunker for a while. I think that might improve everybody's mood.

Don't make me come over there.

Yeah, that's a brilliant idea - we'll just outsource our nuclear holocaust potential to our non-UN affiliated neighbors! I'm sure that they'd come in and lend a hand by raining hellfire on beligerent nations invading our territory.

This is one of those notions that probably sounded a lot better when you were drunk. I suggest that instead of having any more of these notions - that you just drunker for a while. I think that might improve everybody's mood.

first, i never suggested that non-UN nations would come to the aid of the UN. That is a fabrication that you may well believe, however it does not change the fact that i never said it. I was attepting to show that the lack of nuclear weapons is not a ticket straight to hell. conventional armies still exist, and there is no reason not to beleive that strong alliances are not effective when no nukes exist. are there any nuclear wars currently waging? if not, i would suspect that the conventional army is fighting them. the term conventional army does not mean your soldiers are running around with muzzle loaders and jabbing bayonets at people. They can be extremely high tech and just as impersonal. to quote the WMD proposal submitted by "Horizontally wide", "With many countries possessing these devices, our future is at stake. as tactical as 10 kiloton nuke may be, it is still deadly. DEADLY. ..."

And OOC: on a personal note, I choose to be staightedge. -sXe-

:evil: nukes are a deterent against war, they sober against rash decisions, and are useful at wiping the slate clean, although you need to wait a coupla decades before you can re-build society!

we shouldn't de escalte of defences/ deterants past that of our competiors neighbours and certainly past our adversaries

I would never agree, if it heppens i will leave the UN! i couldn't give up the only thing that is keeping my enemies at bay.

a lot of arguments against this proposal stem from nations not wanting to give up their nukes. I implore you to actually read the proposal and realize that it asks for a gradual disarmament. nations will not be found defenseless. and please read the posts already in this thread.

The People's Republic feels that all countries in soldiariy with the ideals of human rights and economic and social justice have a right to defend themselves against capitalistic and imperialistic agressors.

For that reason, we call on all like-minded countries to oppose a UN resolution outlawing nuclear weapons and to consider supporting a planned resolution to allow smaller countries the unequviocal right to obtain so-called "weapons of mass destruction" for their own defese!

The right to defend ones self does not imply the right to endanger others though. i.e. we have all heard the argument and probobly agree that being free does not mean you can do whatever you want. there are limits. if by your free acts you are endangering others, then obviously you are impeding on their rights to be safe. Nuclear weapons are a world issue. No one nation can assume that they are the only nation that will be effectd if a nuke is dropped on them, or that the nation they bomb is the only nation effected. We surely have enough weapons in this world for mutually assured destruction 10 times over or more. Is there a need for that?! Once will destroy the world as we know it. Nations will not lose their defenses under my proposal. Nations belonging to regions (i guess that means ALL nations) have the region and the support of those in the region, allies that have been formed by treaties, and the UN to council and help them.

Interestingly enough, this debate sounds vaguely familiar. Perhaps because its been had a few dozen times in the last three months? Eh. No matter. Even the most tame of anti-nuclear proposals are shot down by paranoid governments who seem to think the only thing standing between their demise as a ruler is a few well-placed mushroom clouds. How ironic that an organization founded on peace keeping is inhabited by so many war-loving nations.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

The right to defend ones self does not imply the right to endanger others though.

Sure it does.

You have the right to punch people in the face. The government has the right to punish you for it.

You don't have the right to have people not do bad things to you - the best you can hope for is the right to be avenged should someone do something bad to you.

We are not presentient. We can't see the future. We cannot prevent, we can only punish. If the punishments are sufficiently severe, people may make the choice to not transgress upon us in the first place - but that's the best we can hope for. Safety cannot be assured, although the alternative can be made so costly that noone will choose it.

Don't make me come over there.

The People's Republic of Miko Mono deplores that the criminial actions of capitalist and imperialist nations have led to the spread of nuclear weapons arsneals throughout the globe. Nevertheless, the nuclear "genie" is out of the bottle. Until such aggressors take demonstrable actions to back their "claims" of a wish for international disarmament, the People's Republic of Miko Mono calls on all like-minded nations to refuse their abandon their right to self-defense in return for vauge pledges of "aid" from so-called "allies."

The right to defend ones self does not imply the right to endanger others though.

Sure it does.

You have the right to punch people in the face. The government has the right to punish you for it.

NO! The reason that the government punishes you is because you are stepping outside of your rights. Not because you have the right to punch someone. That choice to punch someone steps out of your rights, but gives the person being punched the rigth to defend themselves. If You do indeed have the right to punch someone, take it to the extreme and its ok to kill someone, regardless of the pain you will inflict upon the family and friends of that person, and the pain you inflict upon yourself when you get caught. The right to be stupid does not mean you can make everyone else be stupid too. Rights are protected, not punished.

As for the region I am residing in, I am working in their forums on this same topic in that offsite forum, and although i disagree with some stances the ASE takes, I find it to be a good region overall.

Another point about nukes, even if a country invades you, you do not nuke their army that is within your territory. You go and bomb their civilians. That is a huge breach of human rights and (at least as far as i know) proper war procedures.

The proposal also does not ask for an immedeate disarmament. it calls for a gradual reduction of arms, and the final stage of disarmament is left to a time when they truly are not needed, according to the government of the nation.

Not because you have the right to punch someone.

Since when? I totally have the right to punch people!

Don't make me come over there.

Not because you have the right to punch someone.

Since when? I totally have the right to punch people!

i think you're confusing "right" and "ability"...you may have the ability to punch people, but you don't have the right to punch people. rights are given by the government, and when you step outside of your rights, you're punished for it. that doesn't change your "ability" to step outside of your rights...but there is a distinction.

Since when? I totally have the right to punch people!

Don't make me come over there.

I would like a second opinion, not yours though. You may think that you have that right, but really you have a choice. Not a right. If we had the right to punch people, kill people, and rape people as our whimsical moods change, then why are there punishments for it? I would recommend consulting a lawyer or at least legal council before stating something rash like you can hit people anytime you want to. Felonies and misdemeanors are not rewarded to people who are within their right.

OOC-> My sister's fiance was punched in an unagravatted assault. That man had to pay the medical bills, and went to jail for assault. FOR A SIMPLE PUNCH? and that is a right? that is a choice, and a poor one at that. Had it been a fight they probobly would have both been fined for disorderly conduct or some such charge.

The fact of the matter is you do NOT have the right to endanger people. Civilians do not have the right to have automatic weapons, have to be liscenced to hold chemicals such as nitro glycerin, and are certainly forbidden to develope nuclear weapons for personal use. That is endangerment. That in itself is a crime.

Edit: Thank you Nok-Nok. you beat me to the post.

Why disarm nuclear weapons? Don't they have just as much right to bear arms as anyone else? I mean seriously, doesn't this strike anyone else as the kind of fuzzy-headed "thinking" those bloody conservatives constantly drone on about 'til they start foaming at the mouth and fall over backwards? If we start disarming nuclear weapons, next thing you know they'll start talking about disarming children. CHILDREN! Can you imagine? A nation of stubby little no-armed house apes, always whining about how they can't pick up their toys because some git went and disarmed them?

Jeez, people, think before you propose!

Thank you and have a nice day.

well i suppose if nuclear warheads were HUMAN BEINGS they would have as much right to bear arms as you or me. However, nuclear weapons are one of the biggest potencial destroyers of human life that exist in todays world.

PS. the reason your children have no arms is because they are like your family tree, they are very straight and narrow. Where did the arms go? oops...

there is only a few more hours left before this proposal is gone. If you support it, then please endorse it as it will not take effect until the entire UN has voted at a later date. Give it a chance, please.

As the newest nation within the Regon of Fallout California, I believe I must address the point raised by Agnostiks.

You see, no one has any so-called "rights" under any circumstances that are not granted or upheld by their government. If I choose to send my armies across your border, loot your treasuries to fund my R&D Department and go home, I have a perfect "right" to do so. You also have every "right" to try and stop me. In point of fact, human beings, as a whole, have made a practice of trying to stop other human beings from taking what is theirs, and this idea is upheld because we just get more done that way.

So, the basic notion here seems to be that some people want those nations that have nuclear weapons to give them up, imagining that non-UN nations (such as Xanatotia) will blithely roll over and pretend that we do not possess such weaponry and that we will certainly not use it against you once we know for a fact that you don't have any.

By all means, do comfort yourself with the fact that every nation is as unwilling to engage in military actions as you are. We will eagerly await this resolution's passage.

David Xanatos - CEO and President for Life of Xanatotia
"I've -always- wanted to say that."

I should stop monitoring these discussions. Any intelligence I receive about your nations pales before the inanity that I must filter through in order to find it. But again I shall attempt to enlighten you, in the hopes that your populations will perhaps be a little more intelligent by the time they work for Starkeria.

There are nations in the world which are not part of this old-boys network, and, as my 'colleague' Xanatos pointed out, not all of us are going to handicap ourselves by playing your game. If you feel the need to hobble yourselves by banning nuclear weapons, feel free. I'm sure it will have the desired effect of leveling the playing field between the more militant nations in the world and the more pacifistic.

Wait. No it won't.

Nuclear weaponry has proven historically to be an utterly ineffective weapon of conquest. The region of Fallout California is a textbook example of this: foreign and domestic powers engaged in a brief but quite enthusiastic exchange of nuclear weaponry, hoping to annihilate one another. The end result? Political destabilization on a mass scale, allowing such pioneers as myself (and parasites like Xanatos) to claim territory and sovereignty for ourselves. They used nuclear weaponry, and they lost because of it.

Now, there -are- weapons technologies of astonishing effectiveness for conquest. In our region powered armor is remarkably popular, and we are, of course, the largest producers in the region (and knock-offs aren't going to change that). And your ban will do nothing to stop these, or tanks, or strategic air strikes, or carpet-bombing, or even simple mass invasions of well-trained and well-armed troops. All of which will conquer far more effectively.

So you'll have removed a major weapon of mass destruction. You know who uses these feared apparitions in an offensive fashion? People who aren't concerned with conquest. People whose only goal is to destroy something. Largely, these are terrorist groups (Such as Southwest Chestershire or the Erisian Alliance), and they won't be paying any attention to your demands, so you've even failed on that regard and, in fact, made yourself a tempting target for such. Well, and me, of course, but that's because I refuse to play this silly game.

But it's your call, I suppose.

The People's Republic of Miko Mono praises the fellow travelers who have also expressed their disdain for the proposal made by capitalistic and imperialistic countries for all of us to "disarm" ourselves of neccessary weapons in the nebulous name of "security."

As for the Agnostiks, our intelligence service is saddened to report that we have recieved evidence suggesting that the Agnostiks have decided to provide terrorist groups with a so-called "Sword of Agnosticism," which our intelligence has taken to mean nuclear weapons. We call on all U.N. members to decry such activities!

The Grand Duchy of Laio view's this proposal as a waste of time. Any disarmament agreement must APPLY to all NS nations to be effective. We view the possibility of this happening... as zero.

Laio has never found the need to develop "conventional" WMD's. Our prestigious Royal Laioian Institution of Agri-culture and Community College has successfully developed two bovine weapons for defense.

There is the Mobile Bovine Aerial Dispenser (MBAD)... a cow in the back of a truck/lorry. These cows are fed a special diet of hay, clover and Nippon beer.

Then, there is the dreaded Stealth Aerial Assault Weapon (SAAW)... a cow suspended from a hot-air balloon. These cows are specially selected for the size and liquidity of their "bombs."

We stand ready to defend our borders against all aggressors.

Deputy Lt.-Major Boris O’Medici
Information Officer
GDAF

The People's Republic of Miko Mono praises the fellow travelers who have also expressed their disdain for the proposal made by capitalistic and imperialistic countries for all of us to "disarm" ourselves of neccessary weapons in the nebulous name of "security."

As for the Agnostiks, our intelligence service is saddened to report that we have recieved evidence suggesting that the Agnostiks have decided to provide terrorist groups with a so-called "Sword of Agnosticism," which our intelligence has taken to mean nuclear weapons. We call on all U.N. members to decry such activities!

Yep, you sure caught me. I have a couple questions for you though... 1) how is it that you nation, so young, have developed a intelligence service that can "get" information on any nation you want and expect it not to be biased or fabricated? 2) Why would i give out this Sword of Agnoticism? I do not have nuclear weapons, and if i did fund these terrorists, what group would they be? they are not going to be a religios group, for the nature of my country call for neither the acceptance nor the denial of any god or supreme being. I would not give it to any old terrorist group because they could and probobly would use it on me eventually.

Terrorists. A topic that seems to come up more and more often whenever you consider world events. Tell me, is a group of terrorists a nation? Terrorist networks are loose knit and are not generally centralized in a country. So if a nuke hits you, from terrorists, what are you going to do? bomb every nation that has a terrorist cell of the group that bombed you? and if the terrorists were in control of a nation, then we could simply invade and take out the threat right? are they going to nuke their own nation? My point is that although these dangerous people exist, that does not mean that they will present themselves as a clear target. No one nation will be responsible for the terrorist acts.

I would also like to point back to Nok-Nok's post in regard to the issues of rights.

The People's Republic of Miko Mono praises the fellow travelers who have also expressed their disdain for the proposal made by capitalistic and imperialistic countries for all of us to "disarm" ourselves of neccessary weapons in the nebulous name of "security."

As for the Agnostiks, our intelligence service is saddened to report that we have recieved evidence suggesting that the Agnostiks have decided to provide terrorist groups with a so-called "Sword of Agnosticism," which our intelligence has taken to mean nuclear weapons. We call on all U.N. members to decry such activities!

Yep, you sure caught me. I have a couple questions for you though... 1) how is it that you nation, so young, have developed a intelligence service that can "get" information on any nation you want and expect it not to be biased or fabricated? 2) Why would i give out this Sword of Agnoticism? I do not have nuclear weapons, and if i did fund these terrorists, what group would they be? they are not going to be a religios group, for the nature of my country call for neither the acceptance nor the denial of any god or supreme being. I would not give it to any old terrorist group because they could and probobly would use it on me eventually.

Terrorists. A topic that seems to come up more and more often whenever you consider world events. Tell me, is a group of terrorists a nation? Terrorist networks are loose knit and are not generally centralized in a country. So if a nuke hits you, from terrorists, what are you going to do? bomb every nation that has a terrorist cell of the group that bombed you? and if the terrorists were in control of a nation, then we could simply invade and take out the threat right? are they going to nuke their own nation? My point is that although these dangerous people exist, that does not mean that they will present themselves as a clear target. No one nation will be responsible for the terrorist acts.

I would also like to point back to Nok-Nok's post in regard to the issues of rights.

The People's Republic of Miko Mono is outraged that the Holy Republic of the Agnostiks would go so far as to disparage our heroic intelligence service, agents of which gave their lives and will be enshrined on the Wall of People's Heroes to obtain the information that we have previously announced. Information that demonstrates the Agnostiks are a militant and aggressive nation bent on world domination.

As the Agnostiks point out, we are but a small and young nation, but prepared to fight to defend our national pride against such insults. We reiterate our call to all UN members to stand with us and oppose the imperialism of the Agnostiks, who hide behind their calls for "peace" and "disarmament."

We are sure Your Intelligence service is full of top of the line servicemen, and that many have died in the line of duty. That is very unfortunate and i would not question your undying belief that you have the finest intelligence in the land. It is rediculous to say that I wish to dominate the world when obviously i know that is impossible, and I do not want that kind of power, not do i belive that any one nation as the power to dominate the world. Using Selective intelligence will ultimately show itself as false (OOC: Bush anyone?). Nobody in your Intelligence Service died trying to get information on my nation. I am freely open to anyone who would wish to look, there is no need for spies.

We too are a small, young nation. However, although defense from aggressive nations (you seem to have a rather hostile stance towards us) is important, we do not find it necessary to attept to take over the world. I would be pushing a lot harder for endorsements, cessesions, and contributions to my nation, as well as building the military, not reducing its size at every opportunity if i were in fact an aggressive nation. I have asked nothing of anyone but to hear my point of view, and try to debate the merits of such beliefs. Since the birth of The Holy Empire of Agnostiks, we have learned a lot, and thus would not attempt to make enemies nor blindly ignore the world in an attempt to disillusion myself to believe I am that important or influencial. As for my capitalist, conservative, imperialist nation, those ideas are complete fabrications. I deplore capitalism, am not conservative, and i respect the people that believe such values, and the day We become an imperialist nation is the day we convert to a right-wing utopia. The hallmark of this nation and its people is toleration. we are able to tolerate anyone's opinion. If however someone wishes to preach untruths, then of course they are able to do so, however they will be rebutted.

One is entitled to an opinion, but the wise will be able to weed the lies out so that the truth may grow and become prominent. If you are looking for someone to blame problems on, find someone who is responsible. not someone who obviously beleives the opposite of the problem.

Interestingly enough, this debate sounds vaguely familiar. Perhaps because its been had a few dozen times in the last three months? Eh. No matter. Even the most tame of anti-nuclear proposals are shot down by paranoid governments who seem to think the only thing standing between their demise as a ruler is a few well-placed mushroom clouds. How ironic that an organization founded on peace keeping is inhabited by so many war-loving nations.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

*laughing*

Well, I'm not surprised, when we also have nations that advocate against environmental protection on the basis that pollution weeds out the weak. And have other nations arguing against environmental protection on the basis that a secret group of rich nations is working on a special plan to make it harder for the militaries from poor countries to sneak into ports!

10kMichael

The People's Republic of Miko Mono laughs at the propoganda attempts by the corrupt, immoral, bourgeois Holy Republics of Agnostiks to portray itself as a small peaceloving nation.

We stand by the claims of our intelligence service that in reality, the Agnostiks are providing the same nuclear weapons they wish the rest of us to abandon to terrorist groups seeking only death and destruction! Claims further supported by the "interogations" conducted by our heroic state police of captured terrorists!

The People's Republic of Miko Mono categorically rejects all attempts by aggressor nations to have us willingly abandon any measures we feel is neccessary to protect our soverignty and dignity, and call on other UN members to join us in our struggle and to condem the Agnostiks' actions.

We also wish to announce that through our vaunted Army-first policy, we will begin researching new weapons to better defend ourselves against the capitalist and militant threat, and welcome the aid of other like-minded countries in our efforts.