NationStates Jolt Archive

SPACE DEFENSE INITIATIVE

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

Hi all,

I wanted to just thank everyone for their overwhelming support of our proposal during the previous round. Thanks to all of you, our proposal gathered the most approvals any proposal (that hasn't reached quorum) has received in quite some time with 102. This turnout far exceeded my expectations and I was both impressed and grateful at this show of support.

The proposal is resubmitted in its preserved form and, as of 2030 EST on Friday evening, it can be found on page 16 of the proposals.

A note for those very thoughtful and helpful nations that offered suggestions on modifications to the proposal: Though the proposal in its present form is the same as its previous form, I want you all to know that this was not an easy choice and I did want to incorporate many of your ideas. Consultation with my fellow nations in my region, as well as with many of the nations that graciously lent their support the first time around, however, made me understand that the vast majority of supporters and my regional constituents thought that the original proposal's conciseness and general agreeability shouldn't be upset for the second round, given the overwhelming support--and very few dissents--that we received the first time around. Thus, always a servant of my region's people and of those that supported our bill, I acquiesced and did not alter the initial bill. Please know that your ideas were very valuable to me, and perhaps, if we can get this broad proposal passed, we can add to it with the further details that you have submitted. I hope that I can count on your continued support.

Thanks to all who have supported this proposal, and I hope that with your help, we can bring it to fruition. Thank you much.

Diplomatically yours,
SCOS OJ
Hawaiian Brians Regional Delegate to the United Nations

I hope I can count on support from all willing member states on this proposal, recently resubmitted.

Thanks much.

I shall support this resolution as I did in the last submission. The only concern I had was the possibility of the UN then turning this Orbital *Defense* Platform into an Offensive one in the future. But I don't see that as a problem at this time.

Consultation with my fellow nations in my region, as well as with many of the nations that graciously lent their support the first time around, however, made me understand that the vast majority of supporters and my regional constituents thought that the original proposal's conciseness and general agreeability shouldn't be upset for the second round, given the overwhelming support--and very few dissents--that we received the first time around. Thus, always a servant of my region's people and of those that supported our bill, I acquiesced and did not alter the initial bill.

While I understand the value of the advice offered by one's neighbors, I will point out that the Freedom of Choice resolution received no significant dissenting voices in the weeks that it was discussed as a DRAFT proposal, but when you look at the vote of the resolution, it was one of the closest outcomes in 2004 ... actually it may be represent the smallest margin of 2004.

Anyway, while I agree that the majority of the amendments I submitted (I have no idea how many telegrams you received) were really building redunancy into the resolution, keep in mind that for any given discussion in the UN forum only the smallest fraction of voting nations actually read the discussion. Most nations vote based on what they see in the UN resolution page and won't have the chance to have their questions answered.

All this said, I do believe that once this resolution achieves enough endorsements, that it will pass and by a stronger margin than the previous resolution ... for the simple reason that it has international standing and it voluntary in nature. It is IMHO an excellent proposal and I'm looking forward to the discussions it brings.

As for the tracking of celestial threats, should this resolution pass, I agree that we should work together to make another resolution to address this critical mission, and again I'll reiterate that my nation's mountain observatory and the information collected there are at the disposal of this body.

10kMichael

Sublime: Thanks much for your support. I don't foresee the "offensive" problem that you envisaged, but it is something worth considering. I believe that the consensus nature of its operation would be effective to prevent any improper use, however.

Mik: As always, a pleasure to hear your comments and suggestions. Hopefully we can get this bill to a vote and I too will look forward to the ensuing discussion.

As of 0300 EST Saturday morning, SDI was on page 15 of the proposal list. I hope I can count on all supporters to submit their approval, and if possible (and this would really really help) if you could lobby some other regional delegates. If everyone lobbies just one other regional delegate successfully, we'll have more than quorum.

Thanks to all for their support.

Whilst this is well-intentioned and excellently written, I don't know that the solution mandated is appropriate. More research into this kind of threat would be needed before we could be sure that an orbital defence platform would even be of use. For instance, a few years ago the response would be to shoot a load of nukes at an incoming asteroid, but now recent research suggests that, because asteroids aren't simply giant flying boulders, but floating piles of unconnected rubble, this wouldn't work. Solutions now looked upon as more likely would have little use for an orbital platform - landing a rocket on the surface and propelling the asteroid out of its path; shining a concentrated beam of relfected sunlight onto the surface, causing some material to evaporate and shoot off, giving the asteroid momentum in the opposite direction (like a balloon moving as it deflates); or coating the asteroid in something light-coloured so as to change the way sunlight affects its motion (this would take many decades though). (this information was taken from a new scientist article from 19/4/03)

So really a resolution should encourage further research, and create an agency with a mandate to enact the solutions suggested by said research should a dangerous NEO be detected.

Whilst this is well-intentioned and excellently written, I don't know that the solution mandated is appropriate. More research into this kind of threat would be needed before we could be sure that an orbital defence platform would even be of use. For instance, a few years ago the response would be to shoot a load of nukes at an incoming asteroid, but now recent research suggests that, because asteroids aren't simply giant flying boulders, but floating piles of unconnected rubble, this wouldn't work.

Actually the proposal's very first objective is:

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

Which is to begin the research. I don't think that the proposal is expecting the platform to be functional over night.

Solutions now looked upon as more likely would have little use for an orbital platform - landing a rocket on the surface and propelling the asteroid out of its path; shining a concentrated beam of relfected sunlight onto the surface, causing some material to evaporate and shoot off, giving the asteroid momentum in the opposite direction (like a balloon moving as it deflates); or coating the asteroid in something light-coloured so as to change the way sunlight affects its motion (this would take many decades though). (this information was taken from a new scientist article from 19/4/03)

Of these approaches, the second one, would be better if it did in fact come from an orbital platform: as the need to reflect sunlight needs to be done any time of day or "night". A platform is mobile. The Earth and moon both experience night and day, and a series of orbital objects would have to be used to move the light around anyways.

As for the decade long approach and the rocket based approach, you are correct. The platform wouldn't be useful. Which is why I'd eventually like to talk about another approach: an assesment of threats of NEOs in perhaps some sort of NEAT (Near Earth Asteroid Tracking) system.


So really a resolution should encourage further research, and create an agency with a mandate to enact the solutions suggested by said research should a dangerous NEO be detected.

:D I think the author realizes this as well. If it doesn't get enough endorsements this second time, I too would really ask that my amendements are reconsidered.

However, even though I've already made a amendments to address this, I'm still in complete support of this project. If it passes as written, then I'm prepared to make another draft proposal to emphasis continuing research related to tracking and detection.

I think it would also be appropriate to look to the moon as another tracking station as well.

I guess my question then is, if this resolution which is already in the queue gets enough endorsements, would you consider voting and speaking out in favour of it? Clearly you have done excellent research, and I'm of the opinion that your country's voice would be a fine addition to those already in favour.

10kMichael

Thanks much for your comments, your points are well taken.

My good friend and colleague Mikitivity has essentially stated what my response would have been as well, so I won't try to improve upon his words and repeat what he said.

I would like to reemphasive the well made point by Mik that the first operative clause of the resolution calls first and foremost for R&D of the technology and the issues underlying the platform. It would be foolhardy indeed to begin construction from Day 1 without an in depth research effort as to what would be effective and how best to implement it. The resolution is a broad declaratory directive that authorizes this endeavor to go forward on a non-compulsory basis. All the specifics that you discuss in your comment are entirely within the contemplation of this resolution. This provides the broad framework, leaving the specifics of implementation to the experts, such as you and Mik.

Thanks also to Mik for those well reasoned responses.

I appreciate all your comments and feedback. I hope I can count on your support.

Also, to all those wishing to help us out:

SPACE DEFENSE INITIATIVE is on Proposal Page 12, as of Saturday afternoon.

Thanks.

Also, to all those wishing to help us out:

SPACE DEFENSE INITIATIVE is on Proposal Page 12, as of Saturday afternoon.

It also has passed the halfway endorsement mark!

Good job! :D

10kMichael

There's a lot in here we've had to mull over.

First of all, we do believe that asteroids constitute a substansive threat.

Secondly, we're aware that a good many nations already have orbital weapons platforms, but they tend to keep their capabilities quiet and we've no idea if any of them are capable of fending off a major asteroid. And since any significant impact would affect the whole world it seems reasonable that all nations should bear the cost.

Which brings us to cost. Space technology is really, really expensive to research, develop and maintain. The UN can't levy taxes. Where does the money come from?

The 'long range reconnaissance scanners, tractor beams and energy based cannons' thing gave us pause. As a rule, we're inclined to ignore any proposal that involves fantasy/sci-fi elements; we view 'em as close on godmodding. If we allow for the existence of tractor beams, why can't we just get one of the distant-future nations to send in a FTL battlecruiser and smoke the asteroid in a blinking of an eye, or call up some elven druids to avert disaster with a king-sized magic missile? (If there's a conventional-technology version of tractor beams we were unaware of, please enlighten us).

Sorry, I read "develop" as meaning building the thing, which would mean that the resolution obligated us to build the thing even if we later realised it's of no use.

If the proposal was to be re-submitted, I would ask that it concentrate not so much on specific solutions and ask countries to donate to research into anti-NEO threat systems and then into the implementation of suggestions resulting from said research.

As to the mirror, I don't know that orbit would necessarily be the best place for it. It might better be placed far away from gravitational fields so it can stay in one place, with small rockets to turn it as appropriate and to stay in one place. After all, an orbital mirror would be useless while the Earth was on the opposite side of the Sun to the asteroid. Alternativley it might use rockets to follow the asteroid, adjusting its course and alignment as needed.

I'm not sure whether _Myopia_ would support this as a resolution. We might try and have it voted down and re-written as suggested.

To Rehochipe-

With respect to cost, the proposal calls for all participating nations to contribute their maxium allowance in good faith. Admittedly, this may force the development of this platform to take a longer time than if specific funds were mandated, but specific mandate for funds have proven unpopular, and moreover, it is the philosophy of our nation and our region that the UN, as a global cooperative community, ought to be based on mutual willingness, rather than commands from on high.

With respect to the "fantasy/sci fi" elements of the proposal, it was not our intent to take the proposal into the realm of the unreal. We have two specific responses to this: (1) I don't believe that within the course of long range scientific R&D, technology similar to our suggests would be entirely unreal, but even if they are (2), those enumerations were mere suggestions, and the operative language of the resolution leaves specific decisions about the technology to the researchers and the implementation body.

---
To Myotopia: The language of the resolution would clearly not obligate the nations of the world to build something if they realized it was of no use. Like lawyers researching the legislative intent behind a statute, this resolution as all others ought to be construed based on the fundamental intent underlying the language. The idea that literal language will bind the nations of the world to actions that all agreed was futile is not a meritorious concern.

Not sure where the mirror comments came from, I didn't propose that.

With respect to voting it down for your changes to be added, that is, of course, your prerogative. Please know, however, that I've noticed that the more specific the language is, the more qualms that more nations may have. The reality of politics dictates that while many of us may favor very specific proposals with specific and detailed language, such proposals may not be approved by a sufficient majority if not sufficiently broadly agreeable to all.

Again, thank you both for your comments and suggestions, I appreciate the discussion and lively debate that you have contributed to. I hope that we can count on your support.

I shall support this...whatchamacallit...with all my...you know, the thing with the other dohickey?

Whattia, we appreciate very much your gracious supporting, uh, thingamajig.

Also, the proposal is presently on Page 9 of the proposals.

Thanks to all.

Hope I can count on everyone's approval to get this sucker to vote by Monday.

Thanks much.

While I understand that I am in the minority here, I nevertheless have a few issues with the resolution:

1. We cannot take lightly the potential threat that such a system represents. If it were to "fall into the wrong hands" there is a massive threat possibility. Will the UN now have to have its own fleet of surface to space vehicles that can protect it?

2. Clarify the voluntary portion of the resolution for me. If a nation does not contribute, does that mean that they will not have the benefit of equal protection? "Yes, we are also tracking inbound missiles target at your nation. Yes, we could negate this threat, but by our records you were not a contributor to the platform initiative. We are sorry, best of luck."

3. The nature of the use of such a system of communications could also become a political weapon. "Yes, we could aid you in your in-theater troop communications, but our accountants have notified me that your nation is behind on its budget contributions. If that were to be resolved then so would the CRSSHHHTTT...static...CRSSSSHHHTTT...that is causing you...CRSSSHHTTT...to break up."

Don't get me wrong. If it will promote world peace, then you'll eventually have my vote. But as of right now, I worry about the negative possibilities.

Warren Drusens
Special Science Advisor
Republic of Dunlend

Your concerns are valid ones that I would like to briefly address:

1. Falling into the wrong hands: I can't speak to the specifics of security of the system. I suppose you're talking about someone hijacking the controls or something. My only response is that part of the development of the platform would no doubt include protective security measures. The nuclear nations of the world have done a fine job in protecting their nuclear arsenals for the past half century without a nuclear winter passing (except maybe Russia, which I love, who may have let some of those suitcase nukes go, but that's sort of unrelated). It is entirely within the contemplation of the proposal for such a command and control system to be used.

2. Voluntariness: You seem to be confusing the voluntariness of joining with the voluntariness of contribution. Every nation is free to join, or not join the endeavor as they wish. Every nation that does choose to join is urged to contribute their maximum allowance in good faith. This does not mandate any set contribution per nation. The bottom line is that every nation can join and contribute what they see fit. The admitted disadvantage is that gathering of funds and resources may be a slow process, but all I've spoken to have said they favor this regime over one in which the UN would be strictly mandating set contributions from all members. Good faith and cooperation, though a longer process, will ultimately be more beneficial than commands from on high.

Moreover, the threat of an asteroid or other object colliding with Earth is of global concern. A large asteriod hitting some remote region in Siberia, for example, would still have grave consequences everywhere from Moscow to Manhattan and beyond. Faced with this reality, no nation on Earth interested in survival would have an incentive to selectively ignore incoming threats.

3. Communications as political weapon: I'm not sure what you're referencing here. This project does not contemplate the use of the platform for military operations on the ground. That is, in fact, entirely counter to the mission of this proposal. And to allay any fears of improper use, operation of the platform is done by full consensus, so that no group of nations could gang up on one nation and decide to hijack the purpose of the platform.

In sum, this promotes world peace and security through a voluntary, good faith, cooperative joint venture between the willing nations of the world to defend our planet against a mutual and shared threat. Your fears are not trivial, and I do not mean to dismiss them as such, and I hope that my responses have adequately addressed those concerns. If you feel that I have not responded sufficiently, I will be happy to take more of your comments.

Thank you again, I hope that I can count on your support.

Thank you very much for your timely and constructive responses.

My apologies for the communications confusion...I mentally mixed your proposal with the Satellite Security System proposal.

While I understand that I am in the minority here, I nevertheless have a few issues with the resolution:

1. We cannot take lightly the potential threat that such a system represents. If it were to "fall into the wrong hands" there is a massive threat possibility. Will the UN now have to have its own fleet of surface to space vehicles that can protect it?

If the platform were under my nation's control and it fell into the wrong hands, it would be destroyed first.


2. Clarify the voluntary portion of the resolution for me. If a nation does not contribute, does that mean that they will not have the benefit of equal protection? "Yes, we are also tracking inbound missiles target at your nation. Yes, we could negate this threat, but by our records you were not a contributor to the platform initiative. We are sorry, best of luck."


No way. If a nation doesn't contribute, they'll be protected just the same as those that do contribute. But consider this ... the damage from a celestial impact is a global scale event. The societies that stand to lose the most are those with the largest populations.

Planning for an asteroid impact is really no different than planning (and budgeting) for a drought or flood. Cities that stand to lose the most are the first to build bypasses and levees or flood storage capacities in their reservoirs. Nations already are funding programs to track the skies, and some of these research groups are planning to deal with this threat (see the above comments about science magazine).

But there is an added benefit to contribute something ... working with other nations in a project of this scale means your nation will have access / experience in dealing with how other space programs tackle these problems. A small nation like my own may not be able to shuttle material to outer space, but we certainly have engineers and space scientists who will be lent to the program. We also will contribute some funds as well, to defer the costs to other nations that actually build some of the physical infrastructure.

The bottom line is, if you don't care to participate, it actually is in your benefit to vote yes and let those of us that are interested better protect you.


3. The nature of the use of such a system of communications could also become a political weapon. "Yes, we could aid you in your in-theater troop communications, but our accountants have notified me that your nation is behind on its budget contributions. If that were to be resolved then so would the CRSSHHHTTT...static...CRSSSSHHHTTT...that is causing you...CRSSSHHTTT...to break up."


I don't understand what you are implying here. You think that the nations involved in this would use the platform for something other than tracking and defending against NEOs? I promise you that my nation wouldn't waste a valuable planetary defense system for something so trival that could be easily acquired from any other nation's private spy satellites.

10kMichael

Upon further review, I do have one final concern. Your final point calls on a requirement of "full consensus of all participating nations" for actual use of the system. If, say only 100 nations actually join, then does that then follow that that 100 has say over the actual use of a UN tool at the exclusion of the other many thousands of nations? It seems to me that if this passes and the platform is eventually created, then to say that the full UN is not to have ultimate say in its use (since we cannot have a security council here) is most undemocratic and, in fact, creates a cabal of power brokers within the UN.

Thoughts?

Warren Drusens
Special Science Advisor
Republic of Dunlend

Thanks to Dun and Mik for their responses and replies.

With regard to your last comment Dun:

Since anybody can join and it requires nothing more than a good faith effort to give what you can, it would seem that the barriers to joining are minimal to none and that any nation concerned about what you just suggested would join so that they too could have a "veto power" over use of the platform. Thus, in effect, it really would be the whole UN.

Actually, I more frequently hear the opposite complaint, that with full consensus required to operate the platform, it would be too easy to veto an action. My response to that is well covered by Mik's post, but basically, it's that the platform is meant to be used only in cases of grave global consequence and, assuming all nations acting in good faith and rationally, they would quickly resolve to block the annihilation of Earth.

I hope these answers are responsive and I hope we can count on your support.

Normally I like to keep the contents of government communications outside of the UN floor, but I can sense that the need of this orbital platform is unusually dire. With that in mind I?m going to read correspondence between Ms. Carol Danvers, the director of my Confederation?s Space Agency, and myself.


TO: Ms. Carol Danvers, Director C.M.S.A.
FROM: 10kMichael, C.M. U.N. Ambasssador
DATE: March 31, 2004

Ms. Danvers, I?d like to seek your advise concerning pending legislation regarding an orbital defense platform. The full text of the legislation is enclosed in the attachments. The bottom line is, should we support this program? My fear is that the platform could be turned against terrestrial based targets?



TO: 10kMichael, C.M. U.N. Ambassador
FROM: Ms. Carol Danvers, Directory C.M.S.A.
DATE: April 1, 2004

10k, I?ve looked at the proposal and it is harmless.

In fact, the first thought that struck me is that many nations are already building actual weapons platforms in space, and a UN orbital defense platform is not going to be any more dangerous than any of the dozens of weapons platforms that other nations are placing. In fact, it is my recommendation that the United Nations work to control the proliferation of true weapons platforms.

A scientific platform would have been preferred, but I trust that you?ll be able to see to it that this proposed defensive platform takes on a scientific role in addition to a defensive one. Rumour here in Miervatia is that you are a meddlesome ambassador. Keep up the good work.

The premise of the legislation is correct: there is a real threat of the Earth being struck being an asteroid or similar object. As you know, one of our CMSA programs has been to provide grants to Miervatian University, where astronomy faculty has been charting objects in the sky. But as you know, they were just as surprised as the rest of us when 2004 FH shot between the Earth and the moon!

Bottom line: space programs are building platforms in space. I would recommend that our nation join in the space race and since this is a consensus-based project we?d have a say. Would you rather vote this legislation down and not have any control over what a group of nations is going to put up in space? If this legislation fails, I urge you to speak to the nations that voted yes and just put the platform up even without UN endorsement.

-Carol


To put it bluntly: somebody is going to build this thing no matter what. The UN can have a say or not. Which idea makes you sleep better at night?

To Myotopia: The language of the resolution would clearly not obligate the nations of the world to build something if they realized it was of no use. Like lawyers researching the legislative intent behind a statute, this resolution as all others ought to be construed based on the fundamental intent underlying the language. The idea that literal language will bind the nations of the world to actions that all agreed was futile is not a meritorious concern.

Not sure where the mirror comments came from, I didn't propose that.

With respect to voting it down for your changes to be added, that is, of course, your prerogative. Please know, however, that I've noticed that the more specific the language is, the more qualms that more nations may have. The reality of politics dictates that while many of us may favor very specific proposals with specific and detailed language, such proposals may not be approved by a sufficient majority if not sufficiently broadly agreeable to all.

Well, on your dismissal of the threat of overly-literal interpretations, I disgaree. Minor problems with literal meanings etc are often the basis of arguments against NS UN legislation.

The mirror stuff I quoted from an outside source then Mikitivity replied to, and I replied back.

I know that more specific proposals often fail because of chronically short attention spans or because of disagreements with certain points. The latter is actually the cause of that argument I raised against your proposal. I'm asking for a reduction in specificness, because it's silly to talk about any one specific prospective solution when we don't have the research to back it up.

Actually, I more frequently hear the opposite complaint, that with full consensus required to operate the platform, it would be too easy to veto an action. My response to that is well covered by Mik's post, but basically, it's that the platform is meant to be used only in cases of grave global consequence and, assuming all nations acting in good faith and rationally, they would quickly resolve to block the annihilation of Earth.

I actually didn't think of this, but now it's been pointed out, I see that there is no way that we can trust the leaders of all members to be rational and to act in good faith. There are plenty of crazed psycho dictators out there in the NS world who might happily jump on the chance to acquire veto rights in order to allow the annihilation of our civilisation. Thus, I cannot vote in favour of this and hope that it will be re-written to include some way to override a minority of psychopaths.

I see that there is no way that we can trust the leaders of all members to be rational and to act in good faith. There are plenty of crazed psycho dictators out there in the NS world who might happily jump on the chance to acquire veto rights in order to allow the annihilation of our civilisation. Thus, I cannot vote in favour of this and hope that it will be re-written to include some way to override a minority of psychopaths.

I disagree.

Let's pretend that the C.M.S.A. (Confederation of Mikitivity Space Agency) reports that it has projected the probability of a NEO, let's call it Asteroid M, striking the Earth on July 4, 2008 to be likely. Then lets say that the orbital defense platform nations meet to discuss acting on this information (as called for by this resolution).

Let's then pretend that the nation Komorokom says that the CMSA findings are faulty, but at the same time the findings from Myopia confirm the CMSA findings. We now have gridlock, but time still.

Now let's pretend that Myopia and the Confederation share their findings with literally 100s of other nations, and nobody agrees with Komorokom's assement that the likelihood of Asteroid M not hitting the Earth is low. But Komorokom still insists that the findings are wrong.

The world and orbital defense platform committee would have to put pressures (hopefully just diplomatic) on Komorokom to shut up and back down. I'm 100% certain that if the choice the rest of the world faces was getting hit by an asteroid or respecting Komorokom's right to make a global sized blunder, that we'd all see to it that Komorokom's objects were silenced. ;)

Besides, all of this is under your assumption that a "crazed psycho dictator" is going to want to contribute to this project. I'm sure most of the world's "crazed psycho dictators" are busying playing with their frying pans or harem girls / boys.

10kMichael

As of Sunday afternoon, SDI has garnered 156 approvals, exceeding the 155 required for quorum. SDI is now in queue and will be voted on by the whole UN body shortly.

My thanks to all our supporters, particularly those who have posted on this board, who have made our dream of getting this proposal to the floor a reality. On behalf of all the peoples of the Region of Hawaiian Brian's, you have my sincerest gratitude.

I will be starting a new thread shortly to reflect the resolution's newfound resolution status.

Thank you all once again, and I hope that I can count on your continued support.

SCOS OJ
Hawaiian Brian's Regional Delegate to the United Nations

Besides, all of this is under your assumption that a "crazed psycho dictator" is going to want to contribute to this project. I'm sure most of the world's "crazed psycho dictators" are busying playing with their frying pans or harem girls / boys.

10kMichael

I think the psychopathic leader of the nation which broke away from _Myopia_ in a rebellion (OOC: one of my puppets) would, if he could join the UN without violating the rules, jump at the chance to gain veto powers on any motion to save the world. Plenty of people in NationStates role-play that they have leaders insane enough to join purely for the opportunity of vetoing the use of anti-NEO measures. And of course, anyone that insane isn't really going to care about threats, because A he's crazy and won't listen to reason, B who cares about diplomatic pressure when you're all about to be annihilated anyway? and C he can hole himself up in a secure secret underground bunker safe from nuclear attack, and indeed from the asteroid impact and aftermath itself.

Er, we should stick to the other thread so there aren't two parallel discussions running simultaneously.

Also, responses to that issue are embedded all throughout the other thread and likely this one.