NationStates Jolt Archive

The essence of this new proposal is to unite the willing nations of the world to embark on an endeavor to protect the Earth from interstellar objects, such as asteroids, that may pose a danger to our planet. The means for defense would be the research and development of an orbital platform, equipped with appropriate to be developed technology.

Membership in this endeavor would be voluntary, not compulsory, and contributions will be accorded by good faith. Use of the platform would be contingent on full consensus.

Spillover benefits would include the development and sharing of advanced technlogy and, perhaps more importantly, the creation of greater unity and amiability between cooperating nations.

SPACE DEFENSE INITIATIVE: A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

RECOGNIZING, the calamitous consequences of an asteroid striking the Earth

RECALLING, Asteroid 2004 FH, the 100 foot in diameter asteroid which, on 19 March 2004, passed perilously close to Earth

RECOGNIZING, that the gravity of the harm of such an event justifies measured responsive action

REAFFIRMING, the duty and obligation of the governments of all nations to defend its peoples

REAFFIRMING, this council's resolution of 12 November 2002, "Fight the Axis of Evil", calling for an increase in defense spending

REAFFIRMING, this council's resolution of 6 October 2003, "International Space Initiative", calling for international cooperation in the development and advancement of space based technology,

THE UNITED NATIONS, IN COUNCIL ASSEMBLED,

RESOLVES to undertake the research and development of an orbital defense platform designed to defend Earth from threatening interstellar objects

URGES the development of proper equipment for said platform, possibly including, but not limited to, long range reconnaissance scanners, tractor beams and energy based cannons

URGES but does not compel all nations to participate in this endeavor

URGES each participating nation to contribute its maximum allowance in good faith

RESOLVES that in order to prevent the orbital defense platform from improper application, each use and deployment of the platform be approved by full consensus of all participating nations

DECIDES to remain seized of the matter

I like it so far, but it has room for improvement and expansion in all areas. Perhaps, more details would be sufficient for expansion here. Good luck!

tuesdays heights gay

Thanks for your support. Some of the sections are deliberately broad, such as the type of technology and the specifics of contributions as I believe that micromanaging and dictating those details at the present time would be speculative at best and may not be responsive to the specific circumstances that may arise when and if this proposal were to take effect.

I hope others will support this broad initiative to defend all peoples of our planet.

SCOS OJ
Hawaiian Brian's Delegate to the United Nations

It's an interesting proposal. On my initial reading, I see no serious problems with it. I appreciate that you have written it to urge and recommend participation rather than mandating it.

Thank you for your support and I'm glad that you find the voluntary, rather than compulsory nature of the proposal appealing.

I do believe that certain types of proposals do need to be compulsory in order to work. I also believe that compulsion in certain types of proposals, such as this one, can be extremely counterproductive. The UN must still respect national sovereignty and willing partnerships are far more enduring than compelled assocation.

I hope I can count on further support for this globally beneficial measure.

I believe this is a job for the UNSC. I will take up your concerns with the board so submitting a proposal might be a bit hasty.

Thank you for your support and I'm glad that you find the voluntary, rather than compulsory nature of the proposal appealing.

I do believe that certain types of proposals do need to be compulsory in order to work. I also believe that compulsion in certain types of proposals, such as this one, can be extremely counterproductive. The UN must still respect national sovereignty and willing partnerships are far more enduring than compelled assocation.

I hope I can count on further support for this globally beneficial measure.

With thinking like that, and the following clause:


RESOLVES that in order to prevent the orbital defense platform from improper application, each use and deployment of the platform be approved by full consensus of all participating nations


I must say that my nation approves of consensus based approaches. My first fear was the energy based canons could be turned towards earth based targets. I'm assuming as long as nations partipate, a minority voice can still speak to keep this defense platform on target.

10kMichael

Historically there have not been many things threatening to collide with our planet. This type of thing would cost a lot of money and I don't think it is entirely necessary.

To Wetland: I'm not entirely sure if I agree with you that this is a job for the UNSC. First of all, I'm not sure that there is a UNSC in the NS UN (we lack many of the organs the RL UN has). Moreover, this is not a question of deploying troops or military action, it is essentially a research and development question. I do thank you for your comment and would welcome any comment you may further have on my response.

To Cuneo: It is true that there have been few interstellar objects to collide with Earth since man has been around. The fact that we've been fortunate in the past, however, doesn't ameliorate the risk that we still face. All it would take is one hunk of space junk and our civilization could go the way of the dinosaurs. The immense magnitude of the harm certainly justifies action.

Moreover, as you seem to be concerned with cost, please note that participation is voluntary and not compulsory, and also, that each participating nation would contribute in good faith what they could. Recognizing, as you rightly stated, that this is not an urgent, imminent threat, I believe this sort of flexibility can get us going in the right direction without being too much of a drain on national resources. Please let me know what you think, and thank you much for your comment.

To Wetland: I'm not entirely sure if I agree with you that this is a job for the UNSC. First of all, I'm not sure that there is a UNSC in the NS UN (we lack many of the organs the RL UN has).

There is a UNSC - the UN set one up a few resolutions ago:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/77343/page=UN_past_resolutions
However, its remit is only "to establish a permanent Lunar Base capable of furthering the exploration of space for knowledge and resources."

So it might be helpful to work with the UNSC, since they doubtless have a great deal of knowledge to offer. But they wouldn't necessarily have to take control of this project.

My thanks to East Hackney, keeping me up to speed on everything.

The UNSC may very well have a key role in implementing the plan, which the current deliberately inclusive and broad language could contemplate. I believe it is important, however, for the UN as a whole to approve this proposal in its broad form so that we can embark together and enunciate our common and united goal (and leave the micro details to the implementing bodies).

Thanks again. Hope I can count on your support.

I've also noticed that of all the recent proposals, this one seems to be generating the least controversy. I hope this speaks to its generally acceptable nature and not general dismissal of its purpose. =P

Historically there have not been many things threatening to collide with our planet. This type of thing would cost a lot of money and I don't think it is entirely necessary.

Actually we don't really know how many things are threatening to collide with our planet. In fact, we don't even have a good guess.

Just last week there was another near miss (a rock that passed between the Earth and the moon!):

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/

(Keep in mind that this is a current events news page and may be updated ... so I'll copy some of the article below).


Steven R. Chesley
Paul W. Chodas
NASA's Near Earth Object Program Office
Wednesday, March 17, 2004

A small near-Earth asteroid (NEA), discovered Monday night by the NASA-funded LINEAR asteroid survey, will make the closest approach to Earth ever recorded. There is no danger of a collision with the Earth during this encounter.

The object, designated 2004 FH, is roughly 30 meters (100 feet) in diameter and will pass just 43,000 km (26,500 miles, or about 3.4 Earth diameters) above the Earth's surface on March 18th at 5:08 PM EST (2:08 PM PST, 22:08 UTC).

Asteroid 2004 FH's point of closest approach with the Earth will be over the South Atlantic Ocean. Using a good pair of binoculars, the object will be bright enough to be seen during this close approach from areas of Europe, Asia and most of the Southern Hemisphere.

Here is a more detailed link from NASA:

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news142.html

The bottom line is, though this resolution does not address NEAs, the threat is global and real. I appaul our commrades for their work on this proposal, but I'd like to ask that they consider my earlier point about adding language to mandate that the platform not be turned against earth. I also think it would be wise for our nation's space programs to collaborate on NEOs (Near Earth Objects).

(OOC: Basically a globalization of something like this:
http://neat.jpl.nasa.gov/)

10kMichael

The concern about NEA's is implicit in intent of the language drafted covering interstellar objects. Clearly, if a NEA was going to collide with Earth, it would be against intuition and the intent of the proposal to ignore it because NEA's weren't explicitly mentioned.

With regard to turning it on Earth, the mandate that the platform be used against interstellar objects is a clear mandate against use on our planet. More importantly, this concern is addressed by the fact that operation of the platform is contingent on full consensus, so that no gang of nations could collude to destroy a country.

Thanks for your thoughts and concerns, I hope these adequately address them.

The Armed Republic of Best and Brightest applauds this measure and will wholeheartedly endorse it .

Thanks very much to Best and Brightest, we appreciate your support immensely.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

hmm, apparently he didn't have something nice to say

The concern about NEA's is implicit in intent of the language drafted covering interstellar objects. Clearly, if a NEA was going to collide with Earth, it would be against intuition and the intent of the proposal to ignore it because NEA's weren't explicitly mentioned.

With regard to turning it on Earth, the mandate that the platform be used against interstellar objects is a clear mandate against use on our planet. More importantly, this concern is addressed by the fact that operation of the platform is contingent on full consensus, so that no gang of nations could collude to destroy a country.

Thanks for your thoughts and concerns, I hope these adequately address them.

Oh you can count not only on my vote, but also my nation's voice when it comes time to debate for the resolution.

That said, I think other UN representatives that are not from a scientific background (like our esteemed colleques who are experts in law or human rights) may not know what NEOs are. I was thinking over dinner that it might be appropriate to actually name an example threat (in this case NEOs).

If you are open to this idea, I'll draft up a preambulatory clause.

And again, I agree that the platform is clearly not designed to be used against the earth. And yet, I could see a nation or two :roll: arguing that unless we restate this, that it could be used as such.

I think redundancy in a UN resolution is like putting on a cup while playing softball. Chances are you aren't going to need the protection, but those few times a ball gets past your mit, that little piece of plastic becomes one of the most welcomed inventions of our time. ;)

Again, it is your proposal, and you've got my nation's support. But I would love for this resolution to be painfully obvious in intent and design.

10kMichael

Being one of legal training myself (I know, your respect for me has just fallen several notches), I can entirely identify both with the desire for redundancy--a very well taken point, by the way--and lack of scientific acumen.

Your points are excellent and should this proposal not make it by Thursday (I think that's when voting ends), I will certainly look into redrafting it as per your suggestions.

I'm hoping that we can get to 154 by Thursday though.

To all supporters: tell your friends, and eat stuff

Being one of legal training myself (I know, your respect for me has just fallen several notches)


Though not related to the topic at hand, legal training is certainly not grounds for any loss of respect! I dare say that the easiest way to get in my government's good graces (besides sending "small" economic or military aid packages) would be to conduct oneself in a manner such as to respect other diplomats. You've clearly done so. ;)

Best wishes!

Thanks again, your support and kind words are a credit to you and your region.

He's been posting comments that have been deleted everywhere.

I like the idea. Having a seperate entity, out side of UNSC will keep that group focused on maintanence and research. As technology improves, it can be examined and implemented without interupting any other agency.

The only problem I can see is if every nation gets a say, the committee would be huge! Making any decisions combersome and results pecked until uselessness.

but other than that I offer my full support.

You've got my vote chaps. When can we have a resolution to vote on?

Ichi Ni: I agree that large committees will become cumbersome, but the clause is there to protect improper or minor uses of the platform. Consensus, even in large groups, has been historically acheived when matters of monumental import are at stake (e.g. NATO invocation of Art V after 9/11, unprecedented in its history). Hopefully the annihilation of humanity would be sufficient to create global consensus for use of the platform.

King's: Thanks very much for your kind words and support. We appreciate it much. Hopefully it'll make resolution status soon, lobby your fellow delegates :wink:

well, I hope it works out... I will still give my support on this. because it is something that involves the world and not infringes on the nation's individualism.

Lobbying them as we speak.

Ichi: I completely agree, far too many proposals these days are uncreative efforts to restrict nations and their sovereignty. Far too many have proven to divide, rather than unite our global community.

King's: Thanks much I appreciate your efforts.

All: I humbly ask that if it's not too much trouble, for supporters to lobby regional delegates. Voting expires on this proposal at the end of Thursday, so we have some work to do.

If it doesn't pass to resolution status this time around, I will, of course, repropose it and would be grateful for your continued support.

I just wanted to thank all my supporters for their gracious support and urge all interested in this resolution to approve it quickly as proposal voting will expire on it at the end of Thursday. Thanks again

I find this proposal very intriguing... The only problem I see is the question of control. I understand that the technology and information gathered will be shared, but wouldn't it be better if a conglomerate of nations controlled the energy canons? What if the one nation decides that a certain star needs to be destroyed because their nation is too hot, or say they don't agree that a certain asteroid that is on a collision course with earth needs destroyed?

I endorse your proposal, but suggest you find a method of deciding when to use this system.

I appreciate your concerns, and I agree that the question of control is a sticky one.

I do believe that the mechanism that I currently have is the most amenable to all. It is found in the penultimate clause, and states that operation of the platform would be by consensus, i.e. unanimity, only. This would make the platform incredibly hard to use, yes, but for something as dire as the annihilation of humanity, I think that in good faith we can agree to stipulate to the hope that all nations would use agree to use it.

Historically, when man has been faced with great peril, nations of all the world have agreed to cooperate. NATO Art V after 9/11 comes to mind, and even on a grander scale, numerous international conventions such as the Convention on the High Seas or the New York Convention on Arbitration Enforcement. These conventions are agreed to by hundreds of nations with nothing but comity to enforce them--but they are rigorously adhered to anyway because adherence serves the common interests of nations from as diverse philosophies as the United States to Iran. Our hope is that nations will appreciate the threat that an asteroid on a collision course with Earth would provide, and would agree to cooperate as they have done so in the past on much lesser issues.

Thanks again for your support.

I appreciate your concerns, and I agree that the question of control is a sticky one.

I do believe that the mechanism that I currently have is the most amenable to all. It is found in the penultimate clause, and states that operation of the platform would be by consensus, i.e. unanimity, only. This would make the platform incredibly hard to use, yes, but for something as dire as the annihilation of humanity, I think that in good faith we can agree to stipulate to the hope that all nations would use agree to use it.

Historically, when man has been faced with great peril, nations of all the world have agreed to cooperate. NATO Art V after 9/11 comes to mind, and even on a grander scale, numerous international conventions such as the Convention on the High Seas or the New York Convention on Arbitration Enforcement. These conventions are agreed to by hundreds of nations with nothing but comity to enforce them--but they are rigorously adhered to anyway because adherence serves the common interests of nations from as diverse philosophies as the United States to Iran. Our hope is that nations will appreciate the threat that an asteroid on a collision course with Earth would provide, and would agree to cooperate as they have done so in the past on much lesser issues.

Thanks again for your support.

Very well done, and I look forward to seeing more of this soon! Great Job!

Sozo, thanks for your support and your kind words. I'm glad that my region and I have drafted a proposal that has received such kind praise and so few negative comments.

Now if only we could reach quorum by Thursday...

The Holy Empire of Gethamane believes this to be an admirable, well-written proposal.
However, we have two minor issues to be considered prior to resubmission:

Firstly is the issue of control. If we're limited to consensus, then one nation stalling or filibustering a plan of action would halt the entire process. However, it could be changed to an absurd majority, in the vicinity of 90% (off the top of my head). That would make single nations unable to stall. Granted, it's unlikely (especially in the case of dire need), but perhaps it's worth considering? I would like to add that this issue is not enough to prevent us from approving, and subsequently voting in favor, of this proposal.

Secondly, planets other than Earth are already inhabited and take part in the UN. Gethamane feels that we would do well to represent their interests in this proposal. However, this is another issue that will not prevent us from voting in favor of this proposal. If needed, Gethamane's Ministry of International Affairs: Legal Bureau is at your service for assistance in redrafting.

And though it looks like you won't reach quorum this time around, we urge the author to resubmit (after considering our suggested changes) the proposal.

Thank you to Gethamane with his kind words of support and his constructive comments.

Though you have indicated your support, we value everyone's opinion and I will address your two, very valid concerns:

1. Ideally we wouldn't need full consensus, but many I discussed the resolution with were fearful of the platform being turned on Earth, with a majority of nations wanting to use the technology on a minority of nations. Admittedly (one hopes) this notion is far fetched, but even a skeptic like me admits it is possible. Your qualms about a protracted filibuster are valid, but this seemed like the more amenable, lesser of two evils, to have a full consensus.

2. Totally not aware that there were other planets other than Earth in the NS World. If there is sufficient demand, and if there is another drafting necessary, I will look into taking the interests into other planets of domicile. At the same time, however, it would probably be best to start off with a modest project such as this, protecting the main planet (I hope that's not being planet-centric) and going from there.

Thanks again for your comments and your support.

I hope all will help to approve this by Thursday night. And, if not, I thank all those who suggest I resubmit the proposal and I will do so if necessary.

Cheers

I am afraid this proposal is redundant. As I stated earlier the UN already has a working organization that is working on this problem and on others relating to space. Given the level of concern I will talk to my collegues to get some attention for this problem in our plan. To the ones that say that the UNSC does not have the mandate for this, I reffer you to the original text of the resolution. It clearly states that we are the UN Space Consortium not Lunar and it does limit us to the moon. It would therefore be ineffecient to create 2 organisations with the same job when one is already doing the job.

This is less about creating a commitee or an organization in a general sense, than it is about creating a task based resolution. Whether or not this falls within possible concurrent jurisdiction with a broad "space" agency is not reall the focus. This resolution seeks not to usurp the functions of the other agencies--indeed, those agencies are important and perform important functions. Rather, this resolution simply seeks to implement specific action that has not yet been done nor has been yet proposed. Like the 9/11 Committee in the US, one could argue that a number of other agencies could have concurrent jurisdiction, or that it would fall under their purview (e.g. Congressional committees, DOJ, etc.), but it was deemed that this specific task was of such great import that it was necessary to create a committee with a narrow focus and specific jurisdiction to deal with that particular task.

This proposal seeks not to create a parallel space agency, but rather, to create the means and the resolve to implement this one very narrow, specific task. The text and intent of the proposal is very specific in this regard and would give this implementing group no jurisdiction over matters external to the Orbital Defense Platform.

Thanks much for your concern and your comments, I appreciate your feedback.

You are welcome. I merely wish to point out that it would be cheaper to construct the system on the moon and launch it from there. And I also wanted to make clear that yes the UNSC is doing something and that we can perform this task too.

This proposal seeks not to create a parallel space agency, but rather, to create the means and the resolve to implement this one very narrow, specific task. The text and intent of the proposal is very specific in this regard and would give this implementing group no jurisdiction over matters external to the Orbital Defense Platform.


It sounds like you are suggesting that this is a single use project / task. And that is perfectly fine.

But with that in mind, there is the task of identifying and tracking NEOs, so that the platform can be of use. I don't think this point invalidates what you've done here, but it does bring up an interesting point: Should we also consider drafting another proposal to fund astronomical tracking / research -- perhaps a NEAT (Near Earth Asteroid Tracking) project? Basically this was a point that came up in North Pacific deliberations on your proposal.

You've done an excellent job in responding to comments and questions, my nation appreciates your nation's efforts.

You are welcome. I merely wish to point out that it would be cheaper to construct the system on the moon and launch it from there. And I also wanted to make clear that yes the UNSC is doing something and that we can perform this task too.

I think tracking may be OK for a lunar base, but an orbiting platform can be moved when needed. A lunar base is going to be fixed just like a terrestial base, so the timing of any defense becomes much more sensitive. I would guess, I could easily be wrong though.

Another point to bear in mind ... the NEOs that are often of concern pass between the Earth and the moon. Since the proposal seeks to use tractor beams (I'm assuming they'll actually be something akin to the Stark Industries Replusor Fields), the idea is to push the object further away ... though ... hmmm ... maybe a tractor field on the moon could pull the object closer to the moon. But again, this only works if the tractor beam is used when the NEO passes between the Earth and moon. Replusors might work even when the moon is on the other side of the Earth.

In any event, I see the construction being a long time in running.

10kMichael

Thanks to both Mikivity and Wetlands for their well reasoned comments.

To Wetlands: I haven't analyzed the cost of a moon construction, but I think Mikivity's point about mobility is well reasoned and that may be a good reason to keep it as an orbital platform rather than a fixed base. With respect to the existing efforts, I don't believe there is yet on the table a concerted, affirmative plan to implement this project. It may be within the broad purview of other agencies, but concurrent jurisdiction shouldn't foreclose exercise of our jurisdiction. Besides, in approving this, we could very well turn the implementation of it over to one of those existing committees. Passing this proposal, however, would be a declaratory statement by the UN as a whole to put this on the frontburner and start this project along.

To Mikivity: With respect to the ongoing research and tracking committee, such a committee and task are easily contemplatable within the text of the current resolution, though admittedly it is not explicit.

Not being a science expert, I didn't want to hamper such efforts with specific language based on little more than my speculative guesses. As your many posts have demonstrated, and as many others have affirmed, there are many people that are far more knowledgable than I in these matters. Resultantly, I sought to draft the proposal giving as much discretion possible to the actual experts and implementers in deciding what technology would be most appropriate to research and how best to execute the plan.

I hope this is responsive to both comments. Again, I really do appreciate the feedback and am happy to be able to engage in these discussions.

Cheers

I fear you did not read my proposal properly. I was clearly talking about a system that would only be built on the moon. Moving it from the moon to a orbit nearer to earth would be far easier then trying to launch it from earth. I am not talking about a fixed station on the moon itself.

I fear you did not read my proposal properly. I was clearly talking about a system that would only be built on the moon. Moving it from the moon to a orbit nearer to earth would be far easier then trying to launch it from earth. I am not talking about a fixed station on the moon itself.

*looks back*

You are right, you did clearly state that you wanted to construct the system on the moon. My apologies.

10kMichael

Wetlands:

My apologies as well, as I also misread your proposal. Nevertheless, I think it is important to note that there is nothing in my proposal that either mandates that this be built on Earth, or forecloses it being built on the moon. Moreover, there is nothing in the proposal--in fact, it implicitly contemplates the possibility--that forecloses the possibility of handing over the implementation of the proposal to what may prove a more competant body. This proposal is primarily declaratory, serving as impetus and catalyst, and would be entirely consistent with specific implementation plans that you might contemplate within your proposal or within the contemplation of existing UN bodies.

Hope this helps. Thanks again for your continued discussion.

Wetlands:

My apologies as well, as I also misread your proposal. Nevertheless, I think it is important to note that there is nothing in my proposal that either mandates that this be built on Earth, or forecloses it being built on the moon. Moreover, there is nothing in the proposal--in fact, it implicitly contemplates the possibility--that forecloses the possibility of handing over the implementation of the proposal to what may prove a more competant body. This proposal is primarily declaratory, serving as impetus and catalyst, and would be entirely consistent with specific implementation plans that you might contemplate within your proposal or within the contemplation of existing UN bodies.

Hope this helps. Thanks again for your continued discussion.

Thanks to my gracious colleagues, support for our Space Defense Initiative has gained rapid momentum and at the time of this writing we have the most approvals of any present proposal!

Yet, we still have a ways to go. The current approval total of 73 is impressive and well beyond my expectations for a first time proposal, but we still need about double that for the proposal to win resolution status. For all supporters of this, please, lobby your delegate and other delegates to approve this. We have 12 hours left to meet quorum!

If we don't reach quorum, I will resubmit it immediately, of course, and I urge you all too look for it as resubmitted and continue your gracious and very much appreciated support.

Thank you again to all regional delegates who have debated, discussed, viewed and supported this measure. My efforts are nothing without your generous backing. I thank you all.

Thanks to my gracious colleagues, support for our Space Defense Initiative has gained rapid momentum and at the time of this writing we have the most approvals of any present proposal!

Yet, we still have a ways to go. The current approval total of 73 is impressive and well beyond my expectations for a first time proposal, but we still need about double that for the proposal to win resolution status. For all supporters of this, please, lobby your delegate and other delegates to approve this. We have 12 hours left to meet quorum!

If we don't reach quorum, I will resubmit it immediately, of course, and I urge you all too look for it as resubmitted and continue your gracious and very much appreciated support.

Thank you again to all regional delegates who have debated, discussed, viewed and supported this measure. My efforts are nothing without your generous backing. I thank you all.

If we don't reach quorum, I will resubmit it immediately, of course, and I urge you all too look for it as resubmitted and continue your gracious and very much appreciated support.


Would you consider waiting til Friday night (late) before resubmitting it, so that a few of us could propose amendments ... by propose, I mean we telegram or post, and it is up to you to decide if you want to add the changes.

'cause the concern about this being *only* a military project came up in my regional forum discussions. I think if we address this point (and maybe others) that my Delegate will endorse this proposal (assuming he hasn't already -- he may already have).

10kMichael

Thanks for your kind words and your suggestions. I will wait briefly for amendments, but I'd like to get it at the very beginning of the day so that it'll be first on the queue. I am interested, however, to know what else you and others think I might be able to add. Also, I wouldn't characterize this as a "military" proposal, per se, but it is defensive, yes.

Your delegate, by the way, has graciously supported the measure, and I hope that I can count on his continued support.

Also: I hope I can count on everyone's continued support as I press on and resubmit. I want to thank everyone for their wonderful support, and we can all be proud that although we won't make quorum, we have the most approvals of any proposal at present. Very impressive, very impressive indeed. Thanks to all!

The Blue text are my suggested amendments (additions and rewording):

SPACE DEFENSE INITIATIVE: A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

RECOGNIZING, the calamitous consequences of an asteroid striking the Earth

RECALLING, Asteroid 2004 FH, the 100 foot in diameter asteroid which, on 19 March 2004, passed perilously close to Earth

RECOGNIZING, that the gravity of the harm of such an event justifies measured responsive action

REAFFIRMING, the duty and obligation of the governments of all nations to defend its peoples

REAFFIRMING, this council's resolution of 12 November 2002, "Fight the Axis of Evil", calling for an increase in defense spending

REAFFIRMING, this council's resolution of 6 October 2003, "International Space Initiative", calling for international cooperation in the development and advancement of space based technology,

THE UNITED NATIONS, IN COUNCIL ASSEMBLED,

RESOLVES to undertake the research and development of an orbital defense platform designed to defend Earth from threatening interstellar objects

URGES the development of proper equipment for said platform, possibly including, but not limited to, long range reconnaissance scanners, tractor beams and energy based cannons

ENCOURAGES all nations, United Nations members and non-members, to participate in this international endeavor on a voluntary basis;

URGES each participating nation to contribute its maximum allowance in good faith

SOLEMNLY AFFIRMS the continuation of pre-existing international, national, and non-governmental research in the space sciences;

ENCOURAGES international, national, and non-governmental organizations to share any information on the trajectories of any Near Earth Objects (NEOs);

MANDATES that as part of its continuing operation that the orbital defense platform will be used to track celestial objects, including NEOs, with the hopes of identifying potential threats to the planet;

AFFIRMS that the scientific information collected by the orbital defense platform will be completely shared with any participating nations;

RESOLVES that in order to prevent the orbital defense platform from improper application, each use and deployment of the platform be approved by full consensus of all participating nations

EMPHASIZES that the orbital defense platform shall not be used against terrestrial based targets;

DECIDES to remain seized of the matter

Now for the nit pick ... when the proposal is passed, all spacing is lost. I highly recommend you put semi-colans after each activing clause and commas after each preambluatory clause.

Again, you've got my nation's vote and better yet participation in this program. Fortunately being a mountain nation, we do happen to have a few national observatories that could aid in the tracking of NEOs and all of our celestial observations are what I consider free to all nations and peoples!

10kMichael

Mik:

Those look great, my only concern, however, is that with increasing complexity and more clauses, however well refined, well reasoned and ultimately beneficial, may also mean more qualms by more nations.

In the ideal world you would be writing this proposal down to the last word (you are obviously far more well versed in this subject than I am), but the politics of it often dictates that the more ideas there are--even excellent ones like yours--means the more problems those nitpicky ones among us are going to find with it.

This is not to say I don't plan to incorporate your ideas. I will redraft the proposal and certainly be guided by your learned hand. Those in my region, however, have urged me to keep the proposal as similar and as concise as possible given the overwhelming support (and few protests) we've had this round.

Again, your feedback and comments are always deeply appreciated. The world will benefit from having someone who is actually scientifically competent (i.e. you) helping this proposal come to fruition. I will resubmit it soon after this round expires.

Many thanks.

Just wanted to thank everyone for their tremendous support. Close to 100 approvals at the time of this writing. I believe the round will expire in a few hours, so unless there's a sudden surge, we won't meet quorum this time around.

I will resubmit it as soon as the next round starts (4-5 hours from now?) and I hope that I can count on everyone's continued, gracious and generous support.

This is just a note for future projects like this. Try contacting the UNSC and tell them your idea. We will review it and if its good adopt it. That should keep the amount of resolutions down and focus on other matters that are more suited to the UN.

How does one contact the SC? What is their game function, how does it work, etc.

You can TG the nation of Director Wetland for example. We are currently discussing our plans for the lunar base here: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=136123&highlight=
Your suggestions will be welcomed.

Impressive. But I was wondering more about the mechanics of the UNSC itself.

We are a organisation that was founded with the purpose of opening up space. We are funded by selling shares and are governed by the board consisting of nine directors. I am one of them.

What was your establishing authority? UN resolution? Or independent setup?

We were founded to comply with UN resolution UN Space Consortium Implemented on Sun Feb 29 2004. We are a legitimate UN organisation.

Very cool. Who elects the board members, or do they rotate, etc.? What's the mechanics around that?

Sorry for all the off topic, pesky questions.

We were elected through polls on this forum. We will hold new elections in 6 months. I am suprised you missed it.

Relatively new, only a couple weeks going.

Will resubmit my proposal at the end of today.

sign me up

http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/zombies.jpe