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,

Thanks to the tireless efforts of our supporters, our dream of getting this proposal to resolution status has been realized. Again, my gratitude to all those who have assisted.

For those that are unfamiliar with this resolution, its aim is the research and development, and ultimately, the implementation, of technologies designed to protect our planet from the grave consequences of a collision with an interstellar object, such as an asteroid.

Important points: Participation is voluntary, participating nations are asked to contribute however much they believe they can in good faith, and operation of the platform once constructed will be on a full consensus basis.

We've already had quite a lively discussion on this proposal, and if anyone has any questions or concerns, I would urge them to gloss the previous forum topic "RESUBMITTED PROPOSAL: Space Defense Initiative" and see if that thread answers your questions. Else, I am happy to discuss the resolution with anyone who might be interested.

Thank you all. To close, I'd like to post part of a TG I received from The Incorporated States of The Decendants of Orca, which I think sums the resolution up fairly well:

"[to SCOS OJ]: Awesome. I'm very stingy with supports for UN bills, but I like this one a lot. In my opinion, the UN should only attempt to do things that cannot be done by individual nations, and this is a great example."

Thank you and I hope that we can count on your support.

In accordance to the wishes of the Supreme Parliament of the Armed Republic of Battlefield Earth, this resolution has the support of its Ambassador.

The peoples of Hawaiian Brian's and all supporters of SDI thank you and your nation, Battlefield Earth.

Q: Let me get this straight, you are worried about rocks from space destroying civilization?

Well, in the most extreme cases: yes.

But don't take our word for it, educate yourself:

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

The most important page of that site, as it relates to the topic at hand is:

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


Q: Why should my nation participate?

Two reasons really. First, the risk is shared. This is an international problem, because unlike people, rocks from space don't give a darn about political borders. Second, as with all things, when people come and work together, the ones that don't contribute to the team effort are often left in the dark. Nation?s that aren't part of the program stand to be among the last to benefit from the scientific advancements made while designing this orbital defense system.


Q: The United Nations shouldn't be involved?

Actually, the resolution calls for all nations. A nation that is not a member of the United Nations can participate just as easily as a UN member. We all share the risks.

The fact of the matter is we all know that many of our nations have individual space programs. Some of us are already building these things. The question I'm going to ask of you is: When you go to bed at night, who would you rather have building a platform that will hang over your head: a war torn aggressor state or an international coalition of peaceful nations?

Voting no isn't going to stop the platform from being built. It just means that the UN won?t have any say in the platform.

10kMichael

Again, Mik has demonstrated his exemplary knowledge and well reasoned support. Our gratitude to you, Mik, all supporters of global security are in your debt.

I will put this to vote in my region.

I appreciate your region taking the time to consider our proposal.

I appreciate your region taking the time to consider our proposal.

im NOT supporting it without further persuasion

That's not a terribly constructive demand. If there are particulars of which you would like to be persuaded about, most of us would be happy to address those concerns. A flat statement of no support sans persuasion, without delineating what questions or concerns you may have with the resolution, invites no reasonably useful response. We are happy to offer a responsive statement if you ask for something warranting response. Until then, I can only say that we regret your unwillingness to support the proposal and hope that you will take the time to avail yourself of your concerns and apprise us of those issues.

Noting-The very real and underappreciated nature of this potential global threat...

Noting-That for a venture of this type and magnitude, in order to be completed in a timely manner and guaranteed available as protection to all nations, would require the oversight of the UN and the intellectual and technological resources of all capable member nations...

The Republic of Boogidyloo would have it be know that we are in full support of this resolution.

Henrietta Chapman
Minister of Frogs
Boogidyloo

[OOC: Damn you forums! Why don't you want me to reply? The below is mostly OOC as well.]

We recognise the threat of asteroids and believe it right that all nations should join in defending against them, since a major impact would affect the entire planet. However, we have one minor objection which we're sure can be cleared up with little fuss.

The proposal mentions long range reconnaissance scanners, tractor beams and energy based cannons;

Now we're inclined to ignore as godmodding anything which involves fantasy or sci-fi elements. We know that there are a plethora of nations who claim to be on Alpha Centauri or entirely populated by elves, but frankly, if that's the case then any asteroids approaching Earth would either be telekinesis'd away by high-level gnome druids or taken out by the smallest starfighter in the Hightechia fleet. We have to assume, in UN proposals at least, that the technology level and scientific properties of the NS world resemble fairly closely those of the real one, or else who's to say asteroids are any threat at all?

If you can provide evidence of a real-life tractor beam of this kind of scale, we'll gracefully withdraw the objection. We're inclined to ignore it anyway, since the proposal only 'possibly' calls for them.

Well, again, I want to reemphasize that the language of the resolution calling for those particulars was borne entirely out of my own conceptions of what science and technology might have to offer down the road. I am no scientist, I am a lawyer, and so my suggestions as contained in the resolution were not mean to be an accurate reflection of current technology.

Be that as it may, the first task that the resolution contemplates is research of appropriate technologies, which, over time, may include the ideas I listed, but it may not. As you rightly pointed out, the proposal only calls for them "possibly" merely as by way of suggestion or general idea. This is no way binding and I have no intent to fiat fantasy elements into this proposal.

That having been said, I recently found a BBC News article that is somewhat on topic. While it refers only to tractor beams on a microscopic level, it is not inconceivable that technology such as this, developed over several decades (as I imagine it would take for such a platform to be researched and implemented) might one day produce something that could nudge an asteroid off course. The full article is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1310771.stm

In sum, I emphasize that the suggestions laid out in the resolution are more words of general guiding intent, rather than stipulations of specific technologies. There is nothing in the resolution that would contemplate fiating anything unreal--quite the contrary: the resolution's calls for extensive research and development contemplate a world in which such technologies are not yet available and need to be developed and advanced before we can implement a project of such a grand scale.

Again, I thank you for your comments and hope that I have adequately addressed your concern. I hope we can count on your support.

I wish I were a delegate, I would vote for this.

I appreciate your would be vote. Thanks much.

There's some guy labelling all his proposals "RESOLUTION AT VOTE," could someone tell him to stop and label them correctly?

We still fear the concentration of such power in so few hands, safeguards or not.

Do you mean so few nations or the actual people who would be pressing buttons and suchforth?

There's some guy labelling all his proposals "RESOLUTION AT VOTE," could someone tell him to stop and label them correctly?

*shrug*

Ignore him. While it trivalizes "Resolution at Vote" header tags, technically speaking your resolution is still on the table. I'm not sure if this guy was confused or just trying to get attention by misusing the tag, but in either case most of us are wise to him now. :)

10kMichael

We still fear the concentration of such power in so few hands, safeguards or not.

Like I said before. Nations are already building orbital platforms. If you fear such power in so few hands, then you'd probably prefer that the United Nations and as many nations as possible build a platform.

So who would you rather put at that table? Individuals nations, each tossing up their own platform subject to their own rules, or a UN sponsored platform guided by the peaceful intentions of this body?

10kMichael

Honored Member-States:

I would like to preface my remarks by praising the Representative from SCOS OJ. During our tenure in this august body, short though it has been, I have not seen such pure professionalism with regard to introducing and defending a proposal.

Having said that, I take issue with the below remarks from Mikitivity:

We still fear the concentration of such power in so few hands, safeguards or not.

Like I said before. Nations are already building orbital platforms. If you fear such power in so few hands, then you'd probably prefer that the United Nations and as many nations as possible build a platform.

So who would you rather put at that table? Individuals nations, each tossing up their own platform subject to their own rules, or a UN sponsored platform guided by the peaceful intentions of this body?

10kMichael

This smacks of sensationalism. I would like to remind all that this resolution IN NO WAY addresses platforms in existence, under construction, or even in the planning stages that are under the authority of individual nations or national cartels. Thus, a vote in support of the resolution does not change the fact that such power does indeed reside in "so few hands." It simply adds one more platform that, according to the resolution, will be run by those who sign on to the project. If this group ends up being a minority--and we must discuss that possibility--then we are simply creating another space-based potential danger that will also be in the control of a comparitive few.

Thus I again offer that the authority of such a project must needs be in the hands of the entire UN body. Comment has been made that this makes decision-making unwieldy, but I would counter that with the hope that if a perceived threat is indeed as dire as the entire resolution is designed to prevent, then reaching a consensus would not be as difficult as thought.

Finally, as for the "if you're worried, join" argument, I emphatically say nay. Many nations in the world posess nuclear weapons. I should not have to join this club as the only way to lessen the threat that such weapons pose to my nation. Unless our esteemed colleagues from SCOS OJ can offer some guarantees that such technology cannot fall into unauthorized hands or be used in unauthorized ways, then the Republic of Dunlend is not prepared to give the resolution its support at this time.

Respectfully,

Steven J. Sprouse
President, Republic of Dunlend

I am very curious how this proposal would fit in with the UN Space Consortium, created by the resolution of the same name, of which I am a member (or rather one of my other nations on our behalf)

It would appear that although we reached quorum first, we're second in line to the Ed. committee resolution. Shucks.

As for the concerns voiced by my colleagues, I will address them later today.

CHANGE YOUR TITLE PLEASE!!!

Yes, I am shouting

There's some guy labelling all his proposals "RESOLUTION AT VOTE," could someone tell him to stop and label them correctly?

Can´t you?

At the time that I created this thread, the SDI proposal had reached quorum and at the time was the only proposal to have done so. My basis for calling this "resolution at vote" was thus at the time a well founded assumption. As the Ed. Committee one is currently the one at vote and SDI is pending, I would amend the title accordingly, but given the number of posts thus far, I do not want to create any confusion as to the identity of this thread by changing the name.

I would first like to thank Dunlend for his kind words. Compliments from as distinguished a diplomat as Dunlend goes a long way and we are flattered.

With regard to Dunlend's concern about the security of the platform, let me first say that this is not the first time this concern has arisen and it is a wholly legitimate one. As I see it the concerns are predominated by two concerns:

1. Use of platform will be improper as exercised by existing members:

The analogy of the nuclear club isn't entirely apt. Here, you would not have to create an arsenal, or even contribute to the effort beyond one scientist or one Brian's token (local currency) if your government, in good faith, did not feel that it would be fit to do so. In exchange you would get effective veto power over the use of the platform. Given the nearly non-existant barrier to entry, this is not at all a restrictive or exclusive "club" and all those concerned ought to sign on to wield that powerful veto. Moreover, the content and intent of the resolution calls for the use to be very narrowly defined. Anyone could posit a situation in which the contributing nations decided to use the platform improperly, just as anyone could posit a situation where the world's nuclear arsenals are unleashed against populaces for no reason. But if one is to posit that everyone is going to act irrationally, then there is really nothing I or anyone could say to justify this project, or the existence of any instrument of potential destruction in the world. The veto power of any given nation, however, remains the most effective safeguard. It is inconceivable to me why any nation concerned with this issue would not sign on to get this veto power given the fact that joining requires nothing.

2. Platform will be hijacked or used by unauthorized persons:

There are two lines of thought on this subissue: (a) There is no possible, conceivable way that such a platform could ever be safeguarded adequately against this threat; (b) There is some possible or conceivable way, but I fear that it won't be implemented adequately.

If your position is that of (a), that there is no possible way to safeguard the platform adequately, then there is really nothing I or anyone could say to address this issue since such a view holds it to be objectively impossible and posits disapproval from the start. If your position is (b), however, that there is some objectively adequate way, then by signing on to the proposal, you would get a veto as to how the project is implemented. Thus, if the security measures proposed at any given stage were deemed inaqeuate by you, you would have a very effective way of asserting this--namely, by blocking the implementation of the project until your idea was incorporated. The full consensus measure is really quite a powerful tool, perhaps to a fault, but the benefit is that the only type of platform produced--both in form and substantive mission--will be one amenable to all nations.

I hope this is responsive and I hope we can count on your support.

I would first like to thank Dunlend for his kind words. Compliments from as distinguished a diplomat as Dunlend goes a long way and we are flattered.

With regard to Dunlend's concern about the security of the platform, let me first say that this is not the first time this concern has arisen and it is a wholly legitimate one. As I see it the concerns are predominated by two concerns:

1. Use of platform will be improper as exercised by existing members:

The analogy of the nuclear club isn't entirely apt. Here, you would not have to create an arsenal, or even contribute to the effort beyond one scientist or one Brian's token (local currency) if your government, in good faith, did not feel that it would be fit to do so. In exchange you would get effective veto power over the use of the platform. Given the nearly non-existant barrier to entry, this is not at all a restrictive or exclusive "club" and all those concerned ought to sign on to wield that powerful veto. Moreover, the content and intent of the resolution calls for the use to be very narrowly defined. Anyone could posit a situation in which the contributing nations decided to use the platform improperly, just as anyone could posit a situation where the world's nuclear arsenals are unleashed against populaces for no reason. But if one is to posit that everyone is going to act irrationally, then there is really nothing I or anyone could say to justify this project, or the existence of any instrument of potential destruction in the world. The veto power of any given nation, however, remains the most effective safeguard. It is inconceivable to me why any nation concerned with this issue would not sign on to get this veto power given the fact that joining requires nothing.

2. Platform will be hijacked or used by unauthorized persons:

There are two lines of thought on this subissue: (a) There is no possible, conceivable way that such a platform could ever be safeguarded adequately against this threat; (b) There is some possible or conceivable way, but I fear that it won't be implemented adequately.

If your position is that of (a), that there is no possible way to safeguard the platform adequately, then there is really nothing I or anyone could say to address this issue since such a view holds it to be objectively impossible and posits disapproval from the start. If your position is (b), however, that there is some objectively adequate way, then by signing on to the proposal, you would get a veto as to how the project is implemented. Thus, if the security measures proposed at any given stage were deemed inaqeuate by you, you would have a very effective way of asserting this--namely, by blocking the implementation of the project until your idea was incorporated. The full consensus measure is really quite a powerful tool, perhaps to a fault, but the benefit is that the only type of platform produced--both in form and substantive mission--will be one amenable to all nations.

I hope this is responsive and I hope we can count on your support.

The peoples of Hawaiian Brian's and all supporters of SDI thank you and your nation, Battlefield Earth.

You are most welcome. Let it be known that Battlefield Earth stands for SDI!

The peoples of Hawaiian Brian's and all supporters of SDI thank you and your nation, Battlefield Earth.

You are most welcome. Let it be known that Battlefield Earth supports SDI! And that we were the first here to support this proposal.

While we recognize and appreciate the desire for international cooperation to construct and operate a platform designed to defend the Earth against an interstellar threat, I share the concerns of some of my esteemed colleagues that the platform could have disasterous effects if it falls into the wrong hands. Such a platform could become a highly dangerous weapon if it falls into the wrong hands.

Additionally, the scientific probability that an asteroid would hit the Earth is so infinitessimal as to render the massive expense involved a wasteful use of the limited resources of our world's countries. Should we really be spending our money, our resources, and our time developing a system that may realistically never be used?

We intend to vote AGAINST the Resolution at this time.

Mike Sarzo
President
Incorporated States of Sarzonia

I've addressed the security concerns in my last post. If you think that there is no objectively possible way to make it sufficiently safe, then there is nothing I can do to convince you outside of pointing to the fact that command and control systems have been made safe for over half a century by the world's nuclear powers.

With regard to cost and risk: the risk may be small, but the gravity of that risk being realized is beyond immense. With regard to the cost, each nation would be allowed to contribute what they could afford in good faith--by the very terms of the resolution, there would be no overexpenditure or strain on resources as each nation would contribute only what they considered non-wasteful.

I've addressed the security concerns in my last post. If you think that there is no objectively possible way to make it sufficiently safe, then there is nothing I can do to convince you outside of pointing to the fact that command and control systems have been made safe for over half a century by the world's nuclear powers.

With regard to cost and risk: the risk may be small, but the gravity of that risk being realized is beyond immense. With regard to the cost, each nation would be allowed to contribute what they could afford in good faith--by the very terms of the resolution, there would be no overexpenditure or strain on resources as each nation would contribute only what they considered non-wasteful.

This smacks of sensationalism. I would like to remind all that this resolution IN NO WAY addresses platforms in existence, under construction, or even in the planning stages that are under the authority of individual nations or national cartels. Thus, a vote in support of the resolution does not change the fact that such power does indeed reside in "so few hands." It simply adds one more platform that, according to the resolution, will be run by those who sign on to the project. If this group ends up being a minority--and we must discuss that possibility--then we are simply creating another space-based potential danger that will also be in the control of a comparitive few.


I don't see anything sensational about what I've said. If anything, I'm being pragmatic here.

Fact: nations in the International Incidents Forum have discussed orbital weapons platforms.

Fact: nations in the UN Forum have discussed a desire to work together to build a orbital defense platform.

Fact: the UN has already addressed the subject of an international lunar base.

Opinion: By establishing a stronger international presence (even if this presence is still relatively small compared to existing space interests) the UN will have a greater say in the uses of outer space.

It is common in many of our countries that when a new government project is proposed that minority voices express opinions on what actions our governments should take. I like to call these things our "daily issues". I'm sure we all have them.

Now my statement is based on the opinion (based on facts) that no matter what we do, more and more nations will build space programs and put stations and satellites in orbit. Since these things cross international borders, I feel that (unlike many other issues) that the UN should be involved. And the sooner the better.

Why? Simple, we'll be adding another chair at the table of space stakeholders. It may be a small chair, but I'm preparing a proposal to address the scientific needs of the proposed station, and I would be shocked if others aren't considering their own space based resolutions.

We aren't going to ever be able to completely disarm nations that don't want to join the UN. And we'll be hard pressed to limit how nations use space -- again because nations will leave the UN and do what they like. But we do have the ability to lead by example. And though our station may be slowly built over time, by working together, we can make a station that is much larger and easier to maintain than any single nation can.

In short, our chair will start small, but over time our combined improves to our chair will grow. I think this is a very realistic approach since it mirrors the way cities and local governments interact with stakeholders, private citizens, and private companies in so many nations.

In reality I'm asking that you consider giving a UN stamp of approval to this project in exchange for the understanding that this platform will be governed by the peaceful rules that the UN is founded on.

10kMichael

I am saddened it has come to this, but I hope it signals the severity with which Dunlend stands on its protests:


Dunlend Today
April 5, 2004


In a non-typical show of solidarity today, the nation's Parliament and President, in a joint resolution, have made official their policy and philosophy with regard to the United Nation's intention to enter the space race by building its own weapons platform. Dunlend has repeatedly made known its opposition to the policy itself, but also to the wording of the resolution that would enact it. Thus, the government has decided that it will make a stand on the proliferation of weapons and weapon systems to the frontier of space in the following procedural way:

Dunlend will officially vote for the resolution when it comes to a vote next week. As a caveat to that endorsement, by act of this Parliament, it shall be the policy of this nation to make use of its veto authority to prevent, if possible, the actual creation of such a platform. If, somehow, the platform becomes a reality, then Dunlend will use that veto power to prevent any actual use of said platform. As with the UN's policy of nonproliferation with regards to nuclear weapons--specifically its unceasing work to prevent the spread of said weapons--it should be the policy of the UN to find provably peaceful means by which to protect this planet.


Now, before everyone screams bloody murder, I would like to announce that the above story is, indeed a hoax. However, upon reflection I think it points out the flaws that are inherent in the current wording of the resolution. Even if you support the idea of a space based platform, the current use approval protocols that allow for a veto from one nation (as per previous comments from the sponsor) makes the actual usefulness of the resolution questionable. Approval needs to be from a majority of the UN assembled and not a cabal of signons--some of whom might have felt forced to sign on even if they are inherently against this sort of proliferation.

Concernedly,

Steven J. Sprouse
President
Republic of Dunlend

Between the two evils of gridlock and fear that a majority of nations will use the platform against a minority, the vast majority of nations have indicated that the problem of gridlock is, in their minds, the lesser of two evils.

The resolution is premised on participating nations proceeding in good faith. As the resolution contemplates, implementation of the proposal, of which procedural guidelines are intrinsic to, will be largely made ad hoc at the discretion of the participating nations. I cannot say with certainty how the problem of a bad faith holdout would affect the proposal, but I am confident that a solution would be found by the participating nations of the world.

When it comes down to it, it's really again a problem of the lesser of two evils. Gridlock can be overcome through education about the issue, lobbying and negotiations--the fear that the platform would be used against minority stakeholders, however, seems to be more irreversible. The language included reflects the will of the vast majority of nations I've consulted with, rather than my own personal view.

When it comes down to it, it's really again a problem of the lesser of two evils. Gridlock can be overcome through education about the issue, lobbying and negotiations--the fear that the platform would be used against minority stakeholders, however, seems to be more irreversible. The language included reflects the will of the vast majority of nations I've consulted with, rather than my own personal view.

As I recall during the Joccian Genocide Campaign that the non-alligned nations (i.e. non-UN members) were so enraged by the government sponsored killing programs (which the government claimed it resorted to due to the passage of UN resolutions), that a conflict broke out. Joccia was blockaded and its naval forced attacked.

That was all in response to a single government killing elves and prostitutes. I would imagine if an asteroid was projected to strike the Earth and one nation refused in good faith to respond to the threat, that given the choice of millions over the choice of billions that the world might be one government smaller but the chances of the rest of the world allowing that rock to hit the earth is smaller than the original chances of an asteroid killing civilization as we know it.

That brings up a point I've provided links to already. What are the chances that an asteroid will hit the earth?

Well, to be honest, they are small. Automobile accidents are far more frequent and likely. But there is another part of the question: what are the chances that a single automobile accident will destroy civilization as we know it: negligible.

This is called hazard. [OOC: Look at NASA's NEO page at the top of this thread.] Hazard is basically risk factored by cost of damages.

Floods are low risk, but high costs.
Droughts are high risk, but low costs.

The end result between these two natural disasters is such that most nations build flood pools in their reservoir storage systems and build flood bypasses around their major urban centers. Flood pools take away from carry-over storage, which is a drought management tool. [OOC: I'm an engineer by trade, this really is what nations do!]

The point being the hazard of a flood is more significant than the hazard of a drought.

My second point is that although flood management is more critical than drought management, this does not mean that no resources are put into managing for droughts. If the hazard associated with floods are twice as great as the hazards associated with droughts, then twice as many resources are put into floods than droughts. This is basically the idea behind expected value theorem, and the basic idea of any government project.

Finally, though the hazard (risk x cost) of a NEO impact is lower than that of flood events or drought conditions, the hazard is still significant, because unlike floods with destroy only low lying communities or droughts which destroy crops and livestock, a NEO impact is:

(1) not limited to a single country, and
(2) has the potential to change the climate of the earth.

Nobody is asking for a "Death Star" to be constructed. And nobody is even envisioning that a defensive platform be built over night. In fact, the good faith clause means my nation will only contribute resources to this project in accordance with its traditional hazard based budgeting process.

If the hazard of an asteroid impact is 1/1000 of that of a flood event, then naturally my government will contribute 1/1000 of what it would compared to a flood event.

But this is the part that will make this work. 1/1000 of a contribution from my nation, 1/1000 of a contribution from your nation, plus 1/1000 from another 998 nations equals a substanstive budget. One that will not only protect the earth, but also provide secondary scientific and security benefits. One benefit: an increased attention to managing space for the good of us all. Another benefit: shared technology. I'd love to get my nation's hands on some of the hi-tech science you have to offer, and in exchange, my nation will be offering up its astronomical observations.

This is one of the few win-win resolutions you are going to see in the UN.

10kMichael

With respect, this is not about mere gridlock. It is a commentary on the most efficient and effective methods by which a resolution should be crafted. It cannot only be about nice sounding words, but also about words that will actually engender the desired change. What I'm trying to get across is that if even I can see obvious roadblocks like this, then the best course is to deny this proposal in favor of one that can avoid such a fate. If this body is to truly live up to the goal of passing legislation for the benefit of mankind, then we should at least be positive as to the wording of it. We are so fast to pass items that are perceived as being good, but I maintain that good is not enough. The people of the world deserve that if we see a fault, we fix that fault and not settle for "good enough."

Absolutely. I'm curious to hear (and this is sincere, not sarcasm to try to make a point) what solution you might have in mind that would take care of both problems of (a) the stymeing veto you envisage and (b) fears that a majority of nations could gang up on one or a few nations with majority vote to use the platform improperly.

Falling into the wrong hands... Hmmm.

Alot of proposals out there restrict nations thinking... ban this right, ban that right, start this, start that. UN Membership is of itself, a power.

If we fear power falling into the wrong hands... look at the other proposals out there. Most are designed to tell nation leaders how to treat their citizens. Some tried to extend the UN's power to Non-UN Members.

This proposal is to defend Earth against ELE (Extinction Level Events). Anyone can turn anything into a weapon against their neighbors, even 'Purely Scientific" projects. The question is, are we going to let fear or threat of betrayal stop the advancement of the Human Race, or are we going to be vigilant to insure that what we do with our power does NOT fall into the "wrong hands?"

Well said, well said.

We should probably continue all futher conversation about this on this thread rather than the old one. Thanks much.

Kinda confused, recently received this TG:

The People's Republic of Comandante
Received: 17 minutes ago
Honestly now. I hate the military. I would never, ever join it. My country has no guns and no tanks. I would never even propose a draft. So leave the crafty wording behind and say it outright "I like guns. I want to shoot things. You should too." That would be much less deceptive. I hope to make yours the only resolution in history that was not passed.

Um...he sounds pissed. What did I do?

OOC:

Not that I can read his mind, but he's feeling the same frustration that I am. In your defense of the resolution, you are being blind to the fact there there are undertones there that are concerning to many. I know that I have tried, both politely and with ferver, to make those problems known, but it seems that you are not receptive to those ideas. Thusfar you keep towing the party line instead of trying to see another's perspective. Perhaps my initial assessment of professionalism was hastey? I sincerely hope not...

Such a technology is, at its heart, a weapon as Comandante has pointed out. As such, weapons must needs be controlled. I do not SEE in your resolution an adequate command and control mechanism.

Finally, as for the comment of leaping forward, regardless of potential downsides (protection of said platform) I EMPHATICALLY SAY NAY. Perhaps if we had been a bit more thoughtful with regard to the whole nuclear arms idea, then we would not now be living under the threat of mutual assured destruction--not just for those with weapons, but for the whole world. And yes, this analogy does apply. As both myself and Comandante have explained, this proposal creates a weapon. Designed for good yes, but then the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Please temper the tone of my previous message. The frustration is starting to wear thin on my patience...Thank you for actually being receptive to my concerns as indicated in you quote posted below:

Absolutely. I'm curious to hear (and this is sincere, not sarcasm to try to make a point) what solution you might have in mind that would take care of both problems of (a) the stymeing veto you envisage and (b) fears that a majority of nations could gang up on one or a few nations with majority vote to use the platform improperly.

To clear up what might be a confusion, I have never said that I worry about the tyranny of the majority. In fact, I have consistantly commented on the fact that command and control of the platform is only held by those who sign on, rather than the whole of the UN assembled. In the absence of a Security Council, which to my understanding cannot be created for game mechanic reasons, a decision of this magnitude should be with the whole of the UN, whether or not one signed up for the project. Thus, a nation could voice its protest over proliferation of weapons to space, but still have a voice should the admittedly inconcievable happen and it actually need to be used.

asteroids are shitty

yes, but it is that threat, that balancing act that keeps everyone from getting uppity, from starting WW3. Sure a tyrant can get into the White House and bully the nations around. but the other nations can ban together and put down the dictator like a bad dog. Should that dictator attempt to use his weapons, then weather or not you have guns or wmd or orbital platforms or bombs in cigarette boats... it won't matter.

While the I Like guns and you should too viewpoint is valid. it also applies to almost every resolution. for example, this education one. the UN is trying to reshape nation's children in their developmental stages. who's to say that they won't plant the seeds of dissent into their minds? No mention of standards, no mention of what to do with the information this committee gathers. but it looks like it will pass because it looks noble and sweet. Other resolutions passed are nothing more than the UN trying to change Nations to fit it's ideas, yet they still passed. What you can do is, again, should this pass, be vigilant. Join the committee in charge of these platforms. be the saftey net to avoid your fears. at the same time. use them to the purpose they were meant to be used.

(OOC and while the committee is nothing but imaginary, you can still RP it)

this is a horrible proposal, I look forward to voting against it

this is a horrible proposal, I look forward to voting against it

this is a horrible proposal, I look forward to voting against it

this is a horrible proposal, I look forward to voting against it

As always, a useful, constructive and well thought out objection by my honorable colleague, Christian Knightss

this is a horrible proposal, I look forward to voting against it

Yeh, who needs a Death Star hovering over them?

this is a horrible proposal, I look forward to voting against it

Yeh, who needs a Death Star hovering over them?

The Ewoks maybe?

I think it is time to look at both the Space Defense Initiative and the Education resolutions.

Both seek to save the world.

One tries to be sexy and liberal with its idealistic and lofty goal to save third graders from the EVIL socities that give them bad school lunches. (Read the resolution, that is exactly what it says.) The other seeks to be crazy and tech savy with a long term goal right out of Star Trek and a mission to say civilization as we know it.

They really are alike in this point.

But there are *2* fundamental differences:

(1) Funding

The Education resolution FORCES everybody to give up money and rewards poor nations. There is no choice. If the resolution passes, you pay.

The Space Defense resolution is voluntary. You can choose to not be part of the program, and you will not be hurt by it.

It is ironic that everybody seems to prefer to being FORCED into something. "Spank my daddy. Spank me again! Please!" The idea is just a very interesting observation on the way UN nations think ... almost Orwellian.

(2) Scope of Problem

The Education resolution tragets individual cultrals and local traditions. If the magic UN committee of the week wants, it can and will screw around with your local school system. If your religion is to not go to school on Sunday, but if the magic UN committee of the week feels that your students would learn more if they went to school on Sundays, they now will go to school.

This is not really an international problem though. Just because students in the Second Imperium (the nation next to mine) have poorer math scores, doesn't make it my nation's responsibility to give money to my neighboring state.

If my people choose to give money to the Second Imperium, it should be there choice. It should be an agreement between the Second Imperium and the Confederation of Mikitivity.

There is no international standing here.

Now look at the Space Defense initiative. The very fact that people are terrified of the construction of a massive Death Star styled space station in their backyard without their approval, makes this an international issue. Anything entering space is of international concern.

While I can promise you that if the station is about to be used against a terrestial target that my nation would work to see the station removed -- the probability of this happen is LESS than the probability of the UN committee of the week improving the quality of education in any country for the simple reason that the UN committee of the week isn't addressing the problems, it is addressing the symptoms.

Two resolutions: one FORCES you to fight local cultural symptoms without addressing the problem, the other offers you the chance to volunteer to be part of an international effort by agreeing to research and plan for a problem.

I think it is great that both resolutions came up at the same time ... I just hope people can look at them side by side and see the similarities and differences between the two.

10kMichael

My desire to respond directly to the aforesaid comments (prior to Mik's) are superseded by my sincere acknowledgement that Mik's responses are so much better than what I'd offer. :)

Thanks much, again you've proven your intelligence and well reasoned approach to problem solving. Bravo.

Well, this is a new strategy: Lets reference an absolutely horrible resolution in an attempt to make a borderline one look good! Well my Mom taught me that two wrongs don't make a right...

Let's take Mikitivitiy's arguments in order:

First--

"The Space Defense resolution is voluntary. You can choose to not be part of the program, and you will not be hurt by it. "

This argument is illusiary. If your nation is adamantly opposed to the UN getting weapons proliferation business, or if you are against it jumping into the space race, you always have the right to stay out--no harm, no foul, right? WRONG. Read the fine print. The cost of you making that stand is that you will have no say in the construction, maintenance, administration and, yes, ultimate use of that weapon. You will be out of the loop. They are in effect forcing you to abandon your principles in order to have a say.

If the ultimate decisions were made by a vote of the entire UN, then you could make your stand and not contribute, but still ultimately represent your nation's interests by having a say in the particulars. As written, the resolution as written now makes you choose between the two. This is an unacceptable choice to have to make when we could easily correct it.

Second--

"The very fact that people are terrified of the construction of a massive Death Star styled space station in their backyard without their approval, makes this an international issue. Anything entering space is of international concern."

Dunlend agrees on this point. Which is the exact reason why all nations should have a say in this project--not just the ones who "buy a vote" by contributing resources.

So yes, it is interesting to see these two proposals come up at roughly the same time. One effectively takes away a nations right to make policy. One effectively circumvents the universal democratic process. One makes the UN more like the Big Brother that Orwell wrote about.

Then there is the Education proposal....


Steven J. Sprouse
President
Republic of Dunlend

[Please see comment below]

Dunlend agrees on this point. Which is the exact reason why all nations should have a say in this project--not just the ones who "buy a vote" by contributing resources.

So yes, it is interesting to see these two proposals come up at roughly the same time. One effectively takes away a nations right to make policy. One effectively circumvents the universal democratic process. One makes the UN more like the Big Brother that Orwell wrote about.

Then there is the Education proposal....

The resolution does not predicate participation upon contribution. Given the provisions of the resolution, it is entirely conceivable that a participating nation contributes zero. Complaining that a nation that chooses not to participate, given that there is no cost to entry, is being disenfranchised is an odd argument. Every nation is being given the opportunity to exercise a vote through participation in the project at potentially no cost. A deliberate choice not to exercise a granted power to vote is disenfranchisement? Someone who decides to goto the beach on election day is being systematically denied access to the democratic process? I think Orwell might have his own issues with that one.

I feel as if we've been belaboring the same points ad nauseum. There is clearly nothing that I can say that is going to convince you and change your position, and despite your earnest protests, nothing that you have said has changed my position--though I do note that I appreciate the time you've spent thinking and debating this issue.

Rather than continue to beat the proverbial dead horse, I am content to agree to disagree, pending a new, original argument by you or someone else. Again, I mean this in no disrespectful manner as you've proven to be an empassioned and well spoken advocate of your cause, one whom I respect greatly. But you've brought up the same or similar objections and I've answered them repeatedly, satisfactorily to some, unsatisfactorily to others, and I don't believe that this discourse is becoming any further enriched through the same arguments and counterarguments being made over and over again.

My region regrets that you will not support our proposal, but we respect your right and decision not to.

So yes, it is interesting to see these two proposals come up at roughly the same time. One effectively takes away a nations right to make policy. One effectively circumvents the universal democratic process. One makes the UN more like the Big Brother that Orwell wrote about.


Have you read 1984?

I have, and there was nothing in the book that talked about Death Stars or voluntary international organizations.

And yet there was plenty about FORCING people to give into a monoculture (in particular one in which individuals and local regions had no rights).

While the Education proposal is not promoting hate the way Oceania / Big Brother did in Orwell's 1984, the resolution itself is much closer in that it offers nation's no choice.

But I'm going to follow my esteemed collegue from SCOS OJ's lead and focus my attentions where they matter. As the three of us are repeating the same points: you -- this is a TERRIBLE weapon that will be used against the EARTH vs. our argument: that is silly, the platform will be destroyed before that happens.

It is possible I've missed it, but I've yet to see you offer a counter proposal. ::sigh::

10kMichael

Yes I have read it. I in fact teach it in my government class. And what Orwell makes clear is that a government that makes decisions for you, or, even better, convinces/coerces you to buy in to its agenda by your own actions, has succeeded in stripping you of your freedom to decide things on your own. Or to subject your own will to that of the tyrannical all knowing/all seeing government.

Having the UN in control of a weapon platform is a physical manifestation of that idea. In effect forcing a nation to join the program, stripping it of the ability to fight such a move outright, in order to even have the semblence of a say at all, is the same sort position coercion that the people of Oceania had long ago given in to.

As for counter proposals, I am now officially shouting at the wind. I have been trying to say for quite a while now that changing the command and control mechanism to the entire UN would make this a much stronger, clearer and more democratic proposal.

Now, you and SCOS can call my arguments silly, but that will only stiffen my resolve. We can hash this out now, or next week when the vote is on. Your call.

Yes I have read it. I in fact teach it in my government class. And what Orwell makes clear is that a government that makes decisions for you, or, even better, convinces/coerces you to buy in to its agenda by your own actions, has succeeded in stripping you of your freedom to decide things on your own. Or to subject your own will to that of the tyrannical all knowing/all seeing government.


First, I appauld you for introducing your students to what is an extremely thought provoking text! I wish I had read it while younger, but thankfully a girlfriend had a copy and the rest was history. :)


Having the UN in control of a weapon platform is a physical manifestation of that idea. In effect forcing a nation to join the program, stripping it of the ability to fight such a move outright, in order to even have the semblence of a say at all, is the same sort position coercion that the people of Oceania had long ago given in to.


This is where we disagree. Orwell would suggest that the platform is wrong if people were coerced into always following the party line. With respect to this resolution: the resolution is about design and development of the platform ... not the administration of it.

While I've said many times that the reason I'm in favour of this proposal is because I want MORE chairs of nations capable of thinking on their own in space, I don't think: (1) that during a true crisis that nations are going to be so short sighted as to not protect their own interests, and (2) that anybody will allow the platform to harm the earth.


As for counter proposals, I am now officially shouting at the wind. I have been trying to say for quite a while now that changing the command and control mechanism to the entire UN would make this a much stronger, clearer and more democratic proposal.

Now, you and SCOS can call my arguments silly, but that will only stiffen my resolve. We can hash this out now, or next week when the vote is on. Your call.

Hardly, as SCOS was receptive to my initial amendments. Granted they were not applied, but SCOS and myself are both of the school of thought that if you agree that there is a problem and need for action, that now is the time to be proactive and draft alternative language.

SCOS has encouraged me that should this resolution pass to submit my own resolution which will focus on the tracking of NEOs and exchange of scientific information.

If you look through the threads of last week, you'll see that I even addressed the issues you have now. Not because I felt that the current resolution is poor. It isn't in my opinion. But it is vague enough that I can honestly see your concerns.

But look at the Education resolution. It is terrible. Most voters look for cute and fuzzy things that make school girls happy. They don't want 100 + lines of thoughtful real world text ... and realizing this SCOS's region advised against accepting my lenghty amendments.

But the part that I'm hoping to appeal to you is that SCOS did encourage me to continue and turn them into a resolution that would basically amend and improve this one.

It is a problem with NationStates, not the current resolution.

NOTE: I've seen no attempts to do the same with the Education resolution. It is an important subject, the same as this one, but unfortunately most people who aren't interested in science or math, tend to neglect things like hazard vs. risk debates.

My hat is off to SCOS who realized that there is an international (not domestic) problem and started the dialog.

Thank you, Mik, for the kind words. Mik's point is a good one: if you don't disagree with the fundamental precept underlying this, but simply think that it could be improved (as anything can be), then it would be prudent to pass this through and propose further improving resolutions.

If, however, you believe that the fundamental precept is flawed beyond repair, then, well, I guess there's not much I can say.

My hat is always off to Mik, and to all the thoughtful dissenters who keep life fun and interesting. :wink:

Hmm, just noticed: with a few exceptions, this thread has been primarily driven by three people.

Maybe we should temporarily stay this debate and devote our efforts to killing this Ed. Cmmt. resolution.

Of course that's probably a hopeless battle anyway.

I guess we can resume the debate back on this old thread.

Cheers.

I am sorry but I cannot support this resolution


Scientists are already drawing up contingency plans concerning possible impact by space matter; do we really need another?

As the world gets safer and safer we SHOULD be gradually disarming . . . although weapons are necessary, I dont feel like we should suddenly begin a project like SDI


[OOC: on a side note SDI reminds me of the plot of Time Crisis II]

Its about time someone did something about this. In 2880 an asteroid the size of manhattan WILL hit earth, and this is the only one we know about. I would like to add a couple of proposals to this if you are interested. I have no idea whether I can do this as I only joined NationStates yesterday.
First, long range energy based cannons are not really necessary. They will not impart enough delta Vee to change the orbit of any asteroid, as far as I know anyway. What you want to do is build railguns, either on the moon or at the langrange points, and then you can shoot slugs (consisting of junk mail, political prisoners or anything heavy, rock would do if you want to be boring) at the object until it changes its orbit sufficiently.
Second, it seems to me that if an asteroid is going to hit earth then it would be pretty easy to change it's orbit so it goes int orbit around the earth, and then you have a ready made anchor for a space elevator or anything else.

Superpower07 and Grand Teton make some well seasoned points about arms and weaponry, however, please know that there is nothing in the resolution that mandates any specific weaponry. I'm not a scientist, and so the resolution suggests some ideas that I had, but ultimately leaves the final decision to the experts that would implement the plan. For all I know, the experts may decide (as some of my more scientifically savvy colleagues have pointed out) that creating a solar sail or something to use the sun's light to nudge an asteroid off course, would be the best technology to implement on the platform.

Basically, the gist of this is that I'm no expert and in my efforts not to pretend that I am one, I have left the major technological decisions to be left to (1) research and development by the scientists and (2) discretionary implementation by the experts.

By the way: TC2 was an awesome game. TC3 is quite good also. I've beaten both numerous times on one coin only (meaning I get the * by my name). Yes, I'm cool. =P

We'd like to note that we've been impressed by the attitude to science SCOS OJ has taken to the sciences throughout his campaign; too often politicians decide that they know better than scientists and seek to skew findings to further their own agendas. We approve of this willingness to accept scientific findings and allow the scientific community to find the best solution.

While good in manner, it is clear what will happen.

The defense mechanism will be created and a larger nation with a majority contribution to the project will seize control and use it for their own global domination, either for defense or offense.

The CRO will not approve of this measure unless there are amendments or further legislation regarding this issue.

Rogue Outlaws:

I've been taught that whenever someone writes an argument that states that something is "clear" or "obvious," it is never actually clear or obvious and in fact the writer uses those words instead of proving his point.

You've clearly either not read the terms of the resolution that call for operation by consensus, or you have and have chosen to ignore that language for your "clear" alternative which, might I add, is buttressed by no argument. You're positing your "clear" conclusion with no support.

You are free to your opinion and position, but I would ask that you examine your rationale and explain to myself and my colleagues, both for and against, why your posited conclusion is the only, inevitable outcome and how you can be so confident that every other possible solution has been foreclosed upon.

Also, thanks to Rehochipe for the kind words.

You've clearly either not read the terms of the resolution that call for operation by consensus

At the heart of Rogue's objection is the idea of control of the finished product, whatever the form it takes. I quote the resolution:

"use and deployment of the platform be approved by full consensus of all participating nations;"

My problem with this is that nations are forced to choose between opposition to the project (on whatever grounds--proliferation, space race, etc.), which will cause them any say in its development and use, or forced acquiescence to the project just to protect their input.

I have suggested that a solution to this would be to change the wording of the above part of the resolution to allow for the UN proper, not merely contributors, to be the decision-making body that has ultimate say on the platform's use. I feel this would create a stronger and more fair resolution, and thus propose that, since we cannot ammend the proposal at this time, we vote the resolution down and bring it back with the appropriate change.

Dunlend

We'd like to note that we've been impressed by the attitude to science SCOS OJ has taken to the sciences throughout his campaign; too often politicians decide that they know better than scientists and seek to skew findings to further their own agendas. We approve of this willingness to accept scientific findings and allow the scientific community to find the best solution.

Please take in mind that should this resolution PASS, that my nation's previous amendments will be redrafted into a scientific research passed DRAFT proposal to share information related to tracking NEOs.

If nations have objections about the orbital defense platform targetting terrestrial based targets, this future proposal will address that as well.

All and all, this resolution has my nation's full support politically, as well as scientifically -- meaning my nation will join this UN sponsored project and share whatever it can.

10kMichael

Dunlend,

As well articulated as your argument is, one that I must agree to disagree with, but do respect the value of, I think it's a bit of a stretch to credit Rogue Outlaw's statement with the same degree of reasoning and support. I wouldn't put your well articulated objection on the same plane as a declaratory statement that "it is clear" that a singular nation will seize control of the platform "and use it for their own global domination."

Cheers.

Yep. The domination thing's a little silly - we have plenty of orbital platforms floating above the NS world already (ones that are designed to target terrestrial targets, no less) and we've yet to see any devestating campaign of conquest. Mutual assured destruction, darlings - that or I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons.

Will the platform have some type of propulsion system? Or will it just be in orbit around the Earth?

I ask this because of this problem I thought of:

o
[ 0 O<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Where the "[" is the platform, the "0" is Earth, the "o" is the moon, and the "O<<<<<<<<<<<<<<" is an asteroid.

How will the platform deflect the orbit of or destroy the asteroid when it is on the farside of the planet (at conveniently the wrong time) and the asteroid is coming from the opposite end?

Excellent question Novus:

The short answer is that the answer to your question is not expressly stipulated in the resolution, like so many other details which are not stipulated to. What is stipulated to is the mandate that the research, development and implementation of the Defense Platform be done by the scientists and the experts and approved by full consensus of participating states.

Your suggestion is a good one and one that has been proposed before. No doubt that the platform would have a propulsion system to address the very concern you raise, and if for some reason it didn't, you and other like minded nations could block the implementation of the platform until such a system was included.

...

...

Thank you for your response.

My pleasure. It was a common question raised during the proposal stage of the resolution.

I hope my answer satisfactorily addresses your concerns and I hope that we can count on your support.

Thanks for your response SC, but I would like to hear your arguments in opposition to the complete UN having ultimate say in the use of the platform, instead of ONLY contributers.

Dunlend

I take exception to the following points:

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

These weakly nuclear nations do indeed pose a threat to global security, but only in the form of fallout catastrophe that will be wreaked upon the ecospehere by regional nuclear conflicts. An orbital platform, designed to neutralize sub-orbital missiles will be no use against their low-flying, tropospheric rockets and surplus bomber planes.

Abiding by prior commitments is laudable, but doing so wastefully is not.

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;

Again, a commitment wastefully fulfilled is worse than welshing. Our international space efforts should be directed towards leaving the planet, for while our future here is uncertain, a future amongst the stars is a survival guarantee.

As our greatest writer once said: “This is the space age. We are here to go.”

RECOGNIZING, the calamitous consequences of an asteroid striking the Earth;

We should be so lucky! The chances of an undiscovered asteroid striking the planet are 1-in-100,000 and the chances of an extinction-level impact occurring is far, far lower. Also, the thwarting of such an event is short-sighted. The punctuation of the geologic history of our planet by occasional asteroid strikes is a part of our dynamic evolutionary process, and this occasional, cross-kingdom culling increases the vitality of all the species.

Besides, it might kill all of us, too, and that would be the best thing that could possibly happen. Global warming, nuclear and industrial toxification of the land, air, and oceans, the systematic pulverization of every single living thing this earth can grow.. Humans are the REAL extinction event.

At least leave the planet a glimmer of hope, eh?

I take exception to the following points:

RECOGNIZING, the calamitous consequences of an asteroid striking the Earth;

We should be so lucky! The chances of an undiscovered asteroid striking the planet are 1-in-100,000 and the chances of an extinction-level impact occurring is far, far lower. Also, the thwarting of such an event is short-sighted. The punctuation of the geologic history of our planet by occasional asteroid strikes is a part of our dynamic evolutionary process, and this occasional, cross-kingdom culling increases the vitality of all the species.

Besides, it might kill all of us, too, and that would be the best thing that could possibly happen. Global warming, nuclear and industrial toxification of the land, air, and oceans, the systematic pulverization of every single living thing this earth can grow.. Humans are the REAL extinction event.

At least leave the planet a glimmer of hope, eh?

With respect to the probability of the event, see my and Mikivity's earlier comments on this thread about that. Essence of the argument is that in the short term the likelihood is small, but as you increase the shadow of the future, that probability becomes non-negligible. Moreover, the gravity of the harm more than merits concerted action, especially if such action is done on a voluntary basis without mandated contribution levels.

As for the second point, um, if you believe that the annihilation of the human race by an asteroid would be a desirable consequence, then I would urge that you do vote against this resolution.

With respect to the probability of the event, see my and Mikivity's earlier comments on this thread about that. Essence of the argument is that in the short term the likelihood is small, but as you increase the shadow of the future, that probability becomes non-negligible. Moreover, the gravity of the harm more than merits concerted action, especially if such action is done on a voluntary basis without mandated contribution levels.

Oh yes. I did read the earlier posts. I remember one of our learned colleagues said that a Manhattan-sized asteroid was guaranteed to hit us in the 821st century. I must advise you against the folly of planning eight hundred years into the future. Such designs, when whimsy, are merely amusing. When they become the subject of international policy they balloon into delusional grandiosity. Allow me to draw your attention, my estimable colleague, to the case of the German social architect that tried to implement a one-thousand-year Reich. Such far-reaching plans only manage to survive about twenty, even with the most spartan dedication to their execution.

Also, we do not currently posses construction materials durable enough. A complex satellite cannot presently be built to survive the rigors of orbit for even tenth of the timespan in which such an occurrence would become likely.

As for the second point, um, if you believe that the annihilation of the human race by an asteroid would be a desirable consequence, then I would urge that you do vote against this resolution.

Actually, I intend to vote for it as a symbol of protest. Those of you who lack ClarkNovinia's moral clarity may assuage your consciences by blowing this asinine thing out of the water.

In much the same way that you would spear a Canadian harp seal off of an ice floe.

Only with explosives instead of spears.

And in water.

That is all.

Also, we do not currently posses construction materials durable enough. A complex satellite cannot presently be built to survive the rigors of orbit for even tenth of the timespan in which such an occurrence would become likely.

The principal aim of the resolution is to begin the research and development of technology that would be appropriate for such an application. Implementation wouuld not occur until such technology was available, feasible and if the participating nations came to consensus that initiating the implementation process would be tangibly beneficial.

Why vote down a resolution that requires nothing from nations such as yours that dissent, and would allow you to free ride off the benefits anyway.

In all this debate, I feel that I've neglected to thank the literally hundreds of nations that have lent their approval to this measure. I believe that I stand on solid ground when I say that this many approvals is unprecedented in NS UN history.

Thanks to all who have helped to make a humble proposal come to fruition. You have my best.

Cheers.

Why vote down a resolution that requires nothing from nations such as yours that dissent, and would allow you to free ride off the benefits anyway.

Ahhhh, but I thought I was clear in that. ClarkNovinia has no desire to "ride for the free" as you say on your magical missile platform high above the stratosphere. Meteor impacts will bring incalculable benefits to our world. To wit: the extinction of the human feces. Also they impregnate the globe with new forms of astro-life, like germs form mars, and genes from the Pleadies.

Besides, I told you I was voting for it. Everyone ELSE must do the right thing and vote it down. Down, down, down from on high where it stands like a locked door between Earth and the hyper kinetic salvation that lurks out there for it like a lost and lonely lover in the dark, fearing her abusive father with his space shotgun that wishes to take their pleasure!

This is not a resolution about safety, this is cosmic eugenics!

And ask yourself this: must we slowly poison and pave ourselves to death, or do we have the courage and honor to face up to the apocalyptic glory that is our birthright?

The People's Republic of Miko Mono calls on all other UN members that value their independence and soverginity to vehemently oppose this follish resolution!

Why should we smaller, peace-loving countries contribute our meger resources to building a massive, space-based weapons platform that could just as easily be turned on us as on some vague "asteroid threat?" Not only do we call on other UN members to oppose this proposal, but to turn a suspicious eye on both its originator and those who so passionately support it...

Wow, didn't know my resolution was "follish", damn. Well, at least it's not foolish.

If you don't want to contribute, then don't. The resolution calls for participation entirely on a voluntary basis, and even among those participating, contributions are made in good faith at any level the participating nation deems fit (this includes a zero contribution).

Foll!

If you don't want to contribute, then don't. The resolution calls for participation entirely on a voluntary basis, and even among those participating, contributions are made in good faith at any level the participating nation deems fit (this includes a zero contribution).

This is dung, my learned colleague! Lies and dung! NationStates isn't sophisticated enough to handle such granulated stipulations. Once a resolution has passed an irrefutable edict from the compliance ministry is the only level of participation any member nation may aspire to.

Despite what you say, despite your niceties about volunteerism, once it passes, all must obey.

ClarkNovinia concurs with Miko Mono. The resolution is irresponsible, imperialistic, and follish. Follish folly of the highest order! Your naked ambitions peek through your crude prevarications. One look at the oppression in the “Holy” Empire of SCOS OJ (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=SCOS%20OJ) and we can see what you have in mind for the rest of the world.

Rot! Dung!

Foll + y!

This is dung, my learned colleague! Lies and dung! NationStates isn't sophisticated enough to handle such granulated stipulations. Once a resolution has passed an irrefutable edict from the compliance ministry is the only level of participation any member nation may aspire to.

Despite what you say, despite your niceties about volunteerism, once it passes, all must obey....

Rot! Dung!

Foll + y!

You are absolutely right that every nation in the UN is bound by the terms of any resolution that passes. In this resolution, the central, explicit terms of participation state unequivocally that participants are sought on a voluntary basis. Nations will be bound to the resolution which, pursuant to the terms of the resolution, gives them the freedom and right to participate or not to.

Further, I refuse to engage in subsequent discourse with delegates who cannot maintain sufficient decorum so as to not characterize dissenting arguments as "lies" and "dung" and suchforth.

You are entitled to your opinion, your position and your freedom of discourse, and we respect that. We would just urge that the arguments you advance and adhere to be grounded in solid reason rather than ad homonym laden mischaracterizations.

Ahhhh. Now the fig leaf drops.

You are absolutely right that every nation in the UN is bound by the terms of any resolution that passes. In this resolution, the central, explicit terms of participation state unequivocally that participants are sought on a voluntary basis. Nations will be bound to the resolution which, pursuant to the terms of the resolution, gives them the freedom and right to participate or not to.

So, it is no longer, as you claimed, a matter of individual participation in this program. It is a dissenting nation's participation in the U.N. itself. Accede or get out! Love it or leave it!

Why didn't you say so, my friend?

Or should I say, Mein Fuhrer?


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

In light of your new, and dare I say more-honest stance on the matter, this line is base hypocrisy. The resolution can “URGES but does not compel” all it likes, but as you've just acknowledged, if I don't like it I'm URGED to quit the U.N.

Why would you include such a misleading clause in your proposal? Why would you extol it's fraudulent virtue so vociferously? Is it because you know the majority of U.N. members are naive in matters of game mechanics, and will be happy to vote for a proposal if it gives them the illusion of options?

Naw. Couldn't be.

Further, I refuse to engage in subsequent discourse with delegates who cannot maintain sufficient decorum so as to not characterize dissenting arguments as "lies" and "dung" and suchforth.

Actually, I believe that my argument was the dissenting one. Yours is not only the majority opinion but also the impetus behind it. Don't try to hide behind some pretension of minority opposition when yours is the dominant stand. Perhaps you meant “disagreeing”? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

At any rate this is typical rhetoric from corrupt authoritarians. “How DARE you call me a liar! That's SO impolite!”

Never mind that you're lying.

We would just urge that the arguments you advance and adhere to be grounded in solid reason rather than ad homonym laden mischaracterizations.

And speaking of ad hominem mischaracterizations, perhaps you could apologize for insinuating Miko Mono's argument was foolish because he misspelled the word as “follish”.

His mistake is called “a typo”. Yours is referred to as “ignorance”.

Oh, man, this is too awesome, where to begin.

Alright,

1. ClarkNovinia's "Nations will be Bound" argument:

Ahhhh. Now the fig leaf drops.

You are absolutely right that every nation in the UN is bound by the terms of any resolution that passes. In this resolution, the central, explicit terms of participation state unequivocally that participants are sought on a voluntary basis. Nations will be bound to the resolution which, pursuant to the terms of the resolution, gives them the freedom and right to participate or not to.

So, it is no longer, as you claimed, a matter of individual participation in this program. It is a dissenting nation's participation in the U.N. itself. Accede or get out! Love it or leave it!

Why didn't you say so, my friend?

Or should I say, Mein Fuhrer?”.

Either you didn't read what I wrote, or you did read it but didn't understand it. Every nation will be bound to the resolution's terms to initiate this project with a, forgive the term, coalition of the willing, yes. Pursuant to the resolution's terms, however, everyone gets a choice as to whether they want to participate in the project. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this, and I suspect that despite this explanation, you will shoot back with the same mischaracterization, phrased differently. Although, I must confess, I look forward to how you distort this one again--you are a far better writer, spin doctor and sensationalist than any of the other few dissenters. Even I get riled up at me reading your stuff.

Sadly, this was the sole substantive argument (though "substantive" may be an overly generous term), and your other points don't invite any intelligent response.

Also, my allies and colleagues in my region of Hawaiian Brians have shared your telegram with me. For those who are interested (I will be happy to reprint the telegram in full upon request), the telegram, inter alia, accused me of being an authoritarian backstabbing liar and further advocated my overthrow and expulsion from office.

To be perfectly honest: the telegram was really amusing. I would actually encourage you to further lobby my region's members to similar ends. Some of them were offended by your calls to depose their democratically, unanimously elected UN delegate, but I was not. Please continue to lobby them, I need the laughs--life can be so boring sometimes.

Finally, though you purport to be in the majority with your misleading dissents, the unprecedented number of approvals that SDI has garnered would suggest otherwise. Normally, I would not let overwhelming support mute my rebuttal of dissenting arguments. I respect everyone's reasoned opinions and feel compelled to respond and reply to good faith arguments, even if it is clear that the vote wouldn't be strictly needed and even if the dissenter has no UN vote or membership. Your arguments, however, fail this good faith test as they are clear mischaracterizations and malicious personal attacks on myself, my region and my good offices. I, therefore, feel a lessened need and desire to respond to your comments as they do not constitute arguments in any reasonable sense of the word. Do know, however, that you are, by far, the most entertaining objector I have encountered, and I would be terribly dissapointed if you were to cease your activities.

With that in mind, I implore you to respond so that my colleagues and I can further be entertained by your excellent sensationalist work, worthy of Riefenstahl herself.

Alright, alright, my regional colleagues have spoken and have urged me both to reproduce the telegram and their response.

The following was the text of the telegram that Clark sent to one of the nations in my region, Hawaiian Brians (the response is in the next post):

***TELEGRAM FROM CLARKNOVINIA***

Magnficent and Most Serene Republic of Superior Yutopia,

Your U.N. delegate, SCOS OJ, has recently drafted a proposal calling for a space weapons platform. His proposal, while cleverly crafted, is founded on several self-serving conceits. The first is the Bush Doctrine falsehood that a missile-defense system will protect against the “axis of evil” (SCOS OJ's proposal actually says this).

The second is a clause stating that UN member nations will have the option of participating in or abstaining from this program once it passes. This is an outright lie which hopes that you're ignorant of NationStates mechanics. If it passes you will pay for it. Period. It doesn't matter if the bill says you don't have to pay for it if you don't want to. You're going to pay for it.

Your delegate is lying to you.

You can read the full text of it here: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/73090/page=un

The relevant forum debate can be read here: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=136980&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=80

Other nations are worried that this will erode their economies and put them under the thumb of the greater powers that will eventually wield this weapon. I urge you to vote against the Space Defense Initiative
ClarkNovinia resolution when it comes to table, and to withdraw your endorsement from SCOS OJ. Unless you're in bed with the Empire of SCOS OJ they're stabbing you in the back.

Your ob'd'nt servants,
ClarkNovinia

***end of telegram***

And the response of my honourable colleague, Superior Yutopia:

(Please note that both the telegram and this resposne can be found on the Hawaiian Brians regional bulletin board):

***BEGIN SUPERIOR YUTOPIA'S RESPONSE***

The Most Serene Republic of Superior Yutopia
Lessons to be learned (For ClarkNovinia):
1) Flattery will get you nowhere. I'm not going to be more inclined to listen to you because you call my nation "Magnificent" (it's much more than that:P) and you say you're my "ob'd'nt servant." In fact, I'm partially offended that my servant is telling me what to do and how to think.

2)For God's (or "god's", or "nobody's," depending on your religious beliefs) sake man, if you're going to send a frickin' long telegram, spell out the word "obedient." You ended up only saving a single key stroke using those apostrophes!

3)Don't dichotomize issues. "Unless you're in bed with the Empire of SCOS OJ they're stabbing you in the back." Aside from the singular/plurality issue in that sentence, that means that in Clark's view, I can't have read the proposal and rationally agreed with the ideas it presents. Hence, by being in agreement with the proposal, I'm wrong, and heinously so. This "for against or against us" division is an actual "Bush Doctrine Falsehood," unlike what SCOS has put forth as simply an addition to a measure already passed by the UN in earlier proposals.

***ADDITIONAL RESPONSE***

The Most Serene Republic of Superior Yutopia
Oh, Lesson Numbah Four:
The easiest way to make people more fervent is to criticize or persecute what they identify with or believe in. Basic psychology on stressors, arousal, and attachment will tell you this. Thanks to your message, I now support SCOS OJ more strongly than ever before.

***END RESPONSES***

The response of another one of my region's nationals:

Text of the telegram was identical, just addressed to a different nation, here was his response:

***BRATIHAMMERTIMESLAVA'S RESPONSE***

"Regal Armed Republic of Bratihammertimeslava..."

ohhhh, and now i'm regal, huh

regal this

SCOS OJ:

While I appreciate the banter of the previous page, would you please address my earlier point on the idea of who would best be responsible for the ultimate decision to use the platform--only those who contribute, or the whole UN proper...

Dunlend

Duneland:

That topic has been addressed ad nauseum by both you and me on the earlier pages of this thread. I don't believe that rehashing the same arguments for several more pages would be constructive.

SCOS OJ:

While I appreciate the banter of the previous page, would you please address my earlier point on the idea of who would best be responsible for the ultimate decision to use the platform--only those who contribute, or the whole UN proper...


My take based on the resolution (which is pending vote) is that only those who contribute would make the ultimate decision of when to use the platform:


each use and deployment of the platform be approved by full consensus of all participating nations;

But first, a participating nation is one that:


contribute[s] to its maximum allowance in good faith;

But for what I think others may be interested in hearing ... the "use and deployment" really is constrained to the first activing clause:


designed to defend the Earth from threatening interstellar objects;

Meaning that even if the nations that build it in good faith decided to target the Earth, they couldn't. That would be against its UN mandated charter, to which all UN members will be voting on.

I hope that makes sense.

I do have one piece of advice ... my copy of the resolution does not have numbered activating clauses. I am obviously using an older copy (with my amendements included), but I find it useful when talking about what a resolution does to have the activating clauses numbered.

I think this is a good resolution. It has my nation's full support. And should it pass, I will be submitting a DRAFT proposal for this body to review to address the need for our governments to share knowledge on interstellar objects and their orbits.

10kMichael

And you can expect the full and enthusiastic support from the region of Hawaiian Brians, with its representative powers vested in me.

SCOS OJ:

This is for the benefit of those who may not desire to take the time to read five plus pages of discussion. As I have scaled back my objections in the interest of time and regurgitation, I don't think it too wasteful.

In all honesty, this particular issue I have not heard an answer from you. It seems to get sidetracked to something else. It's a simple question:

With whom should the ultimate say in use of the platform be: a selection of nations that contribute, or the body of the UN? and, of course, why?

Dunlend

All interested and concerned nations would get not just a vote, but veto power, pursuant to the penultimate operative clause of the resolution's text.

In this way, all who desire a say in the use of the platform are accorded that opportunity as a matter of right, by terms of the resolution. As many others have agreed, this proves to be the most equitable solution in that it allows all nations concerned to voice their concern efficaciously.

I feel as if I've been saying this a hundred times.

"All interested and concerned nations would get not just a vote, but veto power, pursuant to the penultimate operative clause of the resolution's text."

actually, it says

"each use and deployment of the platform be approved by full consensus of all participating nations;"

PARTICIPATING....not interested, not merely concerned. Now I note that you have made the caveat that participating could be at a 0-level (good faith?). But it still calls for a nation to actually sign on in some form.

This, to me, means that if you're against the whole project, you still have to sign on in order to have any voice in it. In short, if you don't compromise your beliefs and join, you have no say.

How can this be right?

Dunlend

This, to me, means that if you're against the whole project, you still have to sign on in order to have any voice in it. In short, if you don't compromise your beliefs and join, you have no say.

How can this be right?

Any nation not willing to support the program with so scant an endorsement as signing their name to paper could be said to be against the project, no? And a nation which stands against the project could likely be against its use, no? As I see it, the proposal is well written enough to avoid abuse -- I see no scenario where the device could legally be used inappropriately. It's not as if the decision to avert the end of civilization really needs to be a perfectly democratic decision.

Well said, Santin.

Duneland: Many nations in this UN have been against many of the binding resolutions that have since passed, and yet, many of us still remain in the organization. Does that amount to a compromise of our beliefs in order to still have a role in shaping the world? Perhaps. Like the US's initial signing on to the ICJ in order to have a say in shaping its policy, despite the US's objections, such is the consequence of politiking and pragmatism.

Your high minded ideals are laudable, but as a government teacher as you have said you are, I would expect you to realize that politics isn't all about high minded idealism. Human interaction and governance ought to be driven by our hearts and humanism, but is necessarily implemented through the realities of politics and pragmatism.

"Very clever young man, very clever, but it's turtles all the way down!"

Despite your prodigious use of the word "mischaracterization" and appeals to our hearts and humanism, the facts remain:

Due to the limitations of game mechanics no dissenting nation will get to opt out, despite the clause to the contrary. As was said of another "coalition of the willing", it's more a coalition of the kicking and screaming.

It will be a technological boondoggle, easily outmoded by trivial advances in missile technology, and already useless against the "axis of evil" which your resolution purports it to be a prophylactic measure against.

It will cause an even wider disparity between rich and poor nations. Those that cannot afford it will vote against it, and be subsequently excluded from deciding at whom it's aimed.

They'll be forced to pay for it anyway. Or quit the U.N. if they don't like it.

Earth-bound civilization is a dead end. There's no point in protecting it from incoming space rocks when the odds are far greater that our steady trek towards industry-driven extinction will wipe us, and the rest of the ecosphere out long before an asteroid can have its way with our little blue ball.


At this point, and with asinine plans like these as our best defense, it would be better for us to die in the frozen wastelands of a comet-dust winter. At least the bacteria would have a chance. The money for space exploration should be thrown into colonization of other worlds, not in bulwarks between us and the rest of the galaxy.

On a more personal note, your telegram gloating over your consolidation of regional power in spite of my lobbying attempts was very telling. It's always a pleasure to see an authoritarian chuckle shamelessly when he wins a bout.

As beautiful as a baboon's snarl..

Here's another telling little twist you spun:

When I said

Actually, I believe that my argument was the dissenting one. Yours is not only the majority opinion but also the impetus behind it. Don't try to hide behind some pretension of minority opposition when yours is the dominant stand.

you replied

Finally, though you purport to be in the majority with your misleading dissents, the unprecedented number of approvals that SDI has garnered would suggest otherwise.

Now that, my clever colleague, is a mischaracterization worthy of the word!


Also, you might inform your constituent nations that the point of the honorifics was less to flatter, and more to make one-line rhymes (our condolences regarding their tin ears for the mother tongue).

And not to get so hot and steamy over form letters. Bad for the blood pressure.

The People's Republic of Miko Mono first wishes to thank ClarkNovina and other UN members for their valiant and vigrous opposition to the misguided proposal to weaponize space, which belongs to the common good.

The Miko Mono Politburo also wishes to make known its dismay that some fellow UN members seek to prevent any informed and fair debate over their ideas through such needlessly personal attacks as we have seen perpretrated against our allies.

As the Miko Mono Politburo listens to the debate over the SDI proposal, a few things come to mind. First, is that it seems that the only way countries will have any say as to the use of the massive weapons platform to be placed in orbit above us all would be through direct contribution. This places an wholly unreasonable burden on smaller, peace-loving countries to fund the militaristic designs of others.

Second, supporters of the SDI proposal seem to suggest that the use of such weapons would be decided through a so-called "consensus." The People's Republic of Miko Mono has seen all too well how such methods work in the UN, and refuse to abdigate our self-defense in such a way.

We hope other UN members will follow the example of the People's Republic of Miko Mono and its allies in opposing this "proposal."

This, to me, means that if you're against the whole project, you still have to sign on in order to have any voice in it. In short, if you don't compromise your beliefs and join, you have no say.


Never the case.

To have a vote in the deployment and use of the platform you have to sign on.

But let's look at this. Your nation decides to not participate. Your space program detects a probable collision with the Earth and advocates that the platform still be used. While your nation won't have a vote, mine and others that do choose to participate will.

Let's assume that my nation decides to not use the platform. Your nation's vote will not change my nation's decision.

But, your nation and other nations probably can easily convince my nation to change its decision. Not by virtue of having a vote for deciding the use and deployment of the platform, but because all nations have diplomatic tools available.

Let's be reasonable here and not pick unrealistic scenarios. The text of the resolution allows for nations to contribute different levels and have a vote, but it never prohibits any nation from taking an interest or position on the platform.

10kMichael

Earth-bound civilization is a dead end. There's no point in protecting it from incoming space rocks when the odds are far greater that our steady trek towards industry-driven extinction will wipe us, and the rest of the ecosphere out long before an asteroid can have its way with our little blue ball.



That is like saying:

There is no point in protecting yourself from AIDS by practicing safe sex, since statistically you will die from cancer one day anyways.

Most of our nations protect themselves from floods and droughts. Though drougts cause millions of Spice Melange in damage, floods cause billions. Accordingly if you do a quick survey on literature associated with drought management vs. flood management, you'll see about the same ration of publications.

Because a risk or even a hazard is low, does not mean that it should be ignored. It just means that the amount of resources (in this case: time and money) spent on managing the problem should be relative to the risk / hazard associated with other issues as well.

10kMichael

[OOC: If you voted no on every NationStates issue because of its game mechanics are ill-posed, then I'm going to bet you dismiss the majority of your national issues as well as have a hard time voting yes on any UN resolution. The NS game is actually very limited. I'm not suggesting that you should not vote to save your nation from a temporary game stat change you don't like. That is really your call to make. But I want to suggest that some of us, like myself, play for the text of the issues and resolutions. If the mechanics of what is being discussed seems right with my ROLEPLAYING, then I'm gonna screw the often wrong NationStates gamestats and worry about "repairing" whatever shift happens later. I do this by picking and choosing 2 issues a day -- and yes, I often dismiss issues when none of the text options really seem worthy of a decision. But with the UN resolutions, I really have learned to ignore the game stats -- they are frankly too restrictive.]

Let's be reasonable here and not pick unrealistic scenarios.

The most unrealistic scenario of all is the one you just described; of a giant doom-rock approaching on a collision course with earth and someone catching it in time for the weapons platform to be of more use than a rocket launched from the ground.

Here's a much more likely scenario:


The resolution passes.

Everyone that voted for it gets a notice from their compliance ministry informing them that Laws have been enacted to bring them into compliance with the U.N.
Read: they paid for it.

Everyone that voted against it gets a notice from their compliance ministry informing them that Laws have been enacted to bring them into compliance with the U.N.
Read: they paid for it.

No meteor ever comes.

Advances in missile technology make it obsolete in less than five years.

Empires with mottoes like "Die Heiliges Reich von SCOS OJ für Tausend Jahre" get to gloat about their 'full spectrum dominance'.

An “Axis of Evil” nation sends one of their enemies a nuke in a truck, thus obviating the thing altogether.


Let's not forget that the “defense” platform is as much (if not more) a military proposal as it is about rocks from space. It will be costly, and only good for intimidating weaker nations (you can argue all you like about whether it will be used that way or not, but that's all it will be technically capable of doing).

And unless the mods wish to go through the entire list of the thousands of nations that voted for it by hand, -all- U.N. Members will be billed automatically.

My regional colleagues have urged me to post their replies to Clark's solicitations on the general forum so that he might see them.

These comments from my colleague are in response to Clark's backstep after his failed attempt to have my constituents withdraw their endorsements from me.

My right honourable colleague from Superior Yutopia writes:

***BEGIN SUPERIOR YUTOPIA'S RESPONSE***

The Most Serene Republic of Superior Yutopia Hey kids, it’s Annotation Time!

“I expected as much, and have no doubt that you either created, crashed, or otherwise subverted your region.”

Let’s disassemble that:

ClarkNovinia expected that? Well I expected The Passion of the Christ to make exactly $15,216,723 last weekend! My point is that you can say you expected anything in the world, but without substantiation it’s just pointless noise.

Created: Um…no. If he (or she, because males and females can be equally illogical) read the region page, he’d realize FuBabar created HI Bri’s, and that the game has many methods in place for preventing one person from having multiple nations in the UN. Besides, I know the people (note: not a singular person) behind those countries personally, and they are in fact, different people, perhaps thankfully so.

Crashed: Again, no. It’s really difficult to crash a password-protected region, and then gain the unanimous approval of every nation there since the region was created, especially since no country has ever left or ceased to exist in HI Bri’s.

Subverted: Well, that’s a bold allegation, and normally extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof…but I have a feeling that’s not forthcoming. So let me point out that I voted for the World Blood Bank resolution, despite SCOS OJ voting and arguing against it. See, we’re not in lockstep with him.

“Of course this occurred to me afterwards, but it the effort was a pleasure.”

Of course it did, because obviously “this” (whatever it’s referring to) would only be picked up by Clark’s observation retroactively. Too bad the effort wasn’t pleasurable while Clark were engaged in it.

“It amuses me to imagine the fat-palmed spin you placed on our debate.”

It amuses me to imagine SCOS OJ with a fat palm too. Wow, I guess all those years of eating excessive sour cream are finally catching up to him, and least in his hand. Seriously, I had never come across the expression “fat-palmed” before, so I looked on both Google and Yahoo, but no results were found across the entire internet. Perhaps Clark meant “heavy-handed,” but wanting to sound original, pulled synonyms together to rework it, albeit oddly?

Oh, and as for that debate? It’s there for all to see in the forum thread. SCOS OJ isn’t censoring or manipulating Clark’s words for his constituents to read. Trusting that we are rational, competent individuals, hopefully we can be trusted to read through it and draw our own conclusions. Denying this means denying that each of us are incapable of self-determination within our own states. And who would be the judge of that level of competency? Clark?

“Also, it's always nice to see a genteel mask slip off a simians' snout, even if just a bit.”

I’m going to assume Clark is referring to Hammer’s “regal this,” or maybe SCOS OJ’s telegram to Clark. If it is the former, then that’s simply not true: Hammer never presented a genteel mask to begin with. If it’s the latter I can’t comment because I haven’t seen it. Oh, and if those are directly towards my remarks: I merely responded to an unsolicited telegram, which I will now dub a SpamGram.

Regardless, this entire sentence seems to be complicated simply for the sake of complexity and an air of superiority. Personally, I like to eschew obfuscation until the bovines return to their domicile, and so tend to stay away from diction like yours. (Except for the sake of irony) Here, the obscure metaphor is used to hide the direction taken in Clark’s comments. Rather than focus on the points of the SDI proposal or even SCOS OJ’s performance as UN Delegate, the debate has degenerated to “Ha ha, I made you look uncivilized! That means I win!”

Reading Clark’s further comments in the forum, he seems to mention another species of monkey again, but as a psychologist I’ll refrain from reading into that.

“I congratulate your cunning ploy for worthless power.”

No, I congratulate you, ClarkNovinia, for working so hard to try and remove SCOS OJ from his “worthless” power. This reminds me of Aesop’s fable about the Fox and the Grapes. I’m sure that power is really worthless now that Clark hasn’t convinced a single one of us to remove our approval of SCOS OJ, or that no one has taken up Clark’s argument in the forum. By the way, it’s not “in spite” of Clark’s lobbying efforts that SCOS OJ consolidated his power, it’s “because” of his efforts. If Clark had actually read my comment, he might have realized that.

“You have drug the world another step towards total impoverishment.”

Not much to say here, because it’s pretty simple. This is the classic “slippery-slope” argument, which is taught in first-year college writing classes. No, it’s not a good thing. Also, the proper past tense for “drag” is “dragged.” Unless Clark meant SCOS OJ is slipping all of us medication. For someone who uses such sophisticated language, Clark seems to make the occasional error in fundamentals.

“The day is yours!”

Excellent, just a little more work and the night will be ours too!

“Your ob'd'nt foil, The Commonweal of ClarkNovinia”

I’ve already commented (as has Giddeus) on “obedient,” although let me add that it’s like saying “B-B-Q” aloud instead of “barbecue.” And fortunately, Commonweal is an actual word, although it only means commonwealth in its archaic usage. I’ll give Clark the benefit of the doubt that wasn’t a typo.

In short, Clark has a vast vocabulary, poor persuasion skills, and is trying really hard to save face out of a challenge that went awry. Thank you and goodnight!

***END SUPERIOR YUTOPIA'S RESPONSE***

There is no point in protecting yourself from AIDS by practicing safe sex, since statistically you will die from cancer one day anyways.

Ahh, but you see, the chances that you will get AIDS aren't that far from getting cancer. They may not be the same, but they're much closer than the chance that you will get, say, spontaneous CJD.

And if you live long enough you're almost assured to get cancer. If human civilization continues long enough we're almost assured to turn the planet into a wasteland.

It's a good bet, though, that you won't come down with spontaneous CJD. It's also a good bet that an asteroid of calamitous proportions won't hit earth soon enough to kill us off before we can complete the job.



[OOC: If you voted no on every NationStates issue because of its game mechanics are ill-posed, then I'm going to bet you dismiss the majority of your national issues as well as have a hard time voting yes on any UN resolution. The NS game is actually very limited. I'm not suggesting that you should not vote to save your nation from a temporary game stat change you don't like. That is really your call to make. But I want to suggest that some of us, like myself, play for the text of the issues and resolutions. If the mechanics of what is being discussed seems right with my ROLEPLAYING, then I'm gonna screw the often wrong NationStates gamestats and worry about "repairing" whatever shift happens later.

But "repair" how? By opening that uranium mine beneath the rainforest? By privatizing the beaches? This may not matter much to empires such as SCOS OJ who oppress their people and despoil their environments, but to just and peaceful nations it concerns us a great deal. Game mechanics are the game. TOthers do not wish to be drug down the level of the more feckless nations simply because it sounded good at the time.

Lofty legal fictions are used to pave the road to hell every day. When you ignore the mechanics you allow the clever to corrupt the legislative process for their own ends: in this case the oppression of leftist nations.

Your nation is older than mine. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

There is no point in protecting yourself from AIDS by practicing safe sex, since statistically you will die from cancer one day anyways.

Ahh, but you see, the chances that you will get AIDS aren't that far from getting cancer. They may not be the same, but they're much closer than the chance that you will get, say, spontaneous CJD.

And if you live long enough you're almost assured to get cancer. If human civilization continues long enough we're almost assured to turn the planet into a wasteland.

It's a good bet, though, that you won't come down with spontaneous CJD. It's also a good bet that an asteroid of calamitous proportions won't hit earth soon enough to kill us off before we can complete the job.



[OOC: If you voted no on every NationStates issue because of its game mechanics are ill-posed, then I'm going to bet you dismiss the majority of your national issues as well as have a hard time voting yes on any UN resolution. The NS game is actually very limited. I'm not suggesting that you should not vote to save your nation from a temporary game stat change you don't like. That is really your call to make. But I want to suggest that some of us, like myself, play for the text of the issues and resolutions. If the mechanics of what is being discussed seems right with my ROLEPLAYING, then I'm gonna screw the often wrong NationStates gamestats and worry about "repairing" whatever shift happens later.

But "repair" how? By opening that uranium mine beneath the rainforest? By privatizing the beaches? This may not matter much to empires such as SCOS OJ who oppress their people and despoil their environments, but to just and peaceful nations it concerns us a great deal. Game mechanics are the game. Others do not wish to be drug down the level of the more feckless nations simply because it sounded like a good idea at the time.

Lofty legal fictions are used to pave the road to hell every day. When you ignore the mechanics you allow the clever to corrupt the legislative process for their own ends: in this case the oppression of leftist nations.

Your nation is older than mine. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

Once again, some supporters of this militaristic, budget-draining and ill-concieved proposal to place weapons in space to defend against some type of nebulous threat have felt the need to resort to petty bickering and attack rather than to attempt to justify and defend their proposal.

The Politburo of the People's Republic of Miko Mono wonders if this is not a sign as to the relative lack of merit this proposal possesses?

Once again, some supporters of this militaristic, budget-draining and ill-concieved proposal to place weapons in space to defend against some type of nebulous threat have felt the need to resort to petty bickering and attack rather than to attempt to justify and defend their proposal.

The Politburo of the People's Republic of Miko Mono wonders if this is not a sign as to the relative lack of merit this proposal possesses?

Once again, some supporters of this militaristic, budget-draining and ill-concieved proposal to place weapons in space to defend against some type of nebulous threat have felt the need to resort to petty bickering and attack rather than to attempt to justify and defend their proposal.

The Politburo of the People's Republic of Miko Mono wonders if this is not a sign as to the relative lack of merit this proposal possesses?

Once again, some supporters of this militaristic, budget-draining and ill-concieved proposal to place weapons in space to defend against some type of nebulous threat have felt the need to resort to petty bickering and attack rather than to attempt to justify and defend their proposal.

The Politburo of the People's Republic of Miko Mono wonders if this is not a sign as to the relative lack of merit this proposal possesses?

The petty bickering, as you term it, is a justifiable discourse pertaining to Clark’s failed attempts to subvert my region and oust me from my seat. It is entirely within his right to contact and lobby my colleagues, but the gravity of his misstatements invited measured response.

With regard to your allegation that I have not been entirely responsive, I take great exception to that. I have responded to your and Clark’s comments repeatedly. It is clear that you two either do not understand or do not agree with my positions, and that is within your absolute right—however, to claim that I have not responded is a mischaracterization. Moreover, there are five pages of discussion on this topic on this thread alone—and several more pages on previous related threads—that address not just your tired objections, but many others. If you are truly interested in addressing your purported concerns rather than waging a sensationalist nay-saying campaign, please direct your attention to the long documented history of posts on this topic. I am not here to serve as your historian, though luckily, because of this forum’s wonderful archive feature, I do not have to.

While you wrongly accuse me of sidestepping these oft repeated issues, your attacks on my nation and my region’s constituencies are themselves indicative of the relative strength of your arguments.

I would advise you to take a lesson from Dunlend, who has consistently voiced his meritorious objections in a dignified, well reasoned manner and has earned the respect of both his debating allies and adversaries alike.

Where to begin?

To paraphrase:


Created: Um…no. [blah blah blah] I know the people (note: not a singular person) behind those countries personally, and they are in fact, different people, perhaps thankfully so.

Crashed: Again, no.

Subverted: Well, that’s a bold allegation, [blah blah blah] See, we’re not in lockstep with him.

Perhaps “conned” would have been a better choice.


Of course it did, because obviously “this” (whatever it’s referring to) would only be picked up by Clark’s observation retroactively. Too bad the effort wasn’t pleasurable while Clark were engaged in it.

Not at all! I was reasonably certain the lobbying campaign would be a failure, but soldiered on in good spirits. I look back on it with fondness.


It amuses me to imagine SCOS OJ with a fat palm too. [blah blah blah] Perhaps Clark meant “heavy-handed,” but wanting to sound original, pulled synonyms together to rework it, albeit oddly?

Originality is a rare thing, and I understand your confusion when you encounter it. “Heavy-handed” would imply that he had strong armed you into concurrence. “Fat-palmed” insinuates something a little more greasy. When a new expression is minted we call it “coinage”. As for its relative worth.. I make no immodest claim.

Oh, and as for that debate? It’s there for all to see in the forum thread. SCOS OJ isn’t censoring or manipulating Clark’s words for his constituents to read.

Neither was I, in fact I linked you so you could read for yourself.


“Also, it's always nice to see a genteel mask slip off a simians' snout, even if just a bit.”
I’m going to assume Clark is referring to Hammer’s “regal this,”...

No, I refer to my learned colleague's SCOS OJ's apish grasp for a big, brutal space club. “Club” in the sticks and stones sense, you understand. Though I guess it's the other kind of club, too.

Rather than focus on the points of the SDI proposal or even SCOS OJ’s performance as UN Delegate, the debate has degenerated to “Ha ha, I made you look uncivilized! That means I win!”

I didn't make him look anything. His empire is uncivilized. Just ask any of its less fortunate citizens. And as I recall I went on to outline at length why his resolution is a boondoggle and a power grab. For brevity's sake I refer you to my previous posts.

Reading Clark’s further comments in the forum, he seems to mention another species of monkey again, but as a psychologist I’ll refrain from reading into that.

I'll be happy to comment, however. When men lust for military solutions to non-existent problems they are displaying their primate nature. Specifically their long-fanged baboon nature, whose attitude towards the world is to beat the rest of it into submission. Of course no snarling mandrill ever wielded a missile defense platform in high orbit, but we can be reasonably certain that he'd find it a welcome improvement over a heavy stick.

As a psychologist the behavioral similarities (however elaborated) between modern man and his monkey cousins might interest you.


No, I congratulate you, ClarkNovinia, for working so hard to try and remove SCOS OJ from his “worthless” power.


By "worthless power" I meant the boondoggle of his missile defense shield and the militaristic ambitions it so nakedly embodies. Obviously political power is worth a great deal.

For someone who uses such sophisticated language, Clark seems to make the occasional error in fundamentals.

Much like my ad hominem attacks vs. the learned SCOS OJ's ad homonym attacks, hmm? But no doubt, no doubt, your faith in the abilities of your servant is profoundly justified.

(personally, I find it smashing that he misused "homonym" because it's a homonym. how rare is that?)

And fortunately, Commonweal is an actual word, although it only means commonwealth in its archaic usage.

Perhaps it's an archaism to the Vastly Superior Yutopians, but in ClarkNovinia we debate the commonweal with great vigor, while remaining ob'd'nt to the principles of justice and natural law, and often seiz'd of an enormous passion bordering on amour.

Clark has a vast vocabulary, poor persuasion skills, and is trying really hard to save face out of a challenge that went awry.

As I said before, I launched into this attack with the full expectation of failure. If there is one thing our people know well, it is that the process of reason is a war of attrition.

But enough of tit for tat, let's to the meat of the matter:

My regional colleagues have urged me to post their replies to Clark's solicitations on the general forum so that he might see them.

It is curious that they, or at least you (my honorable colleauge from Yutopia), would go through the trouble of crafting an eloquent rebuttal yet feel it necessary to relay them through SCOS OJ, rather than your own delegation to this august body. I had thought perhaps he crashed the region (by which I meant he got his friends together in a pack, not that he founded phony colonies) but it didn't occur to me that he'd bilked you all fair and square.

Perhaps you need a strong man to protect you from the imminent terror of the horrible space rocks. Perhaps you need a strong delegate to shield you from the rigors of dogged international debate. I'm in no position to judge the complexities of your regional realities.

However, I do ask that he refrain from poising his fangs over the rest of our heads, and that he not ask us to pay for the privilege.

Your nation is older than mine. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

You know this is the first "correct" thing I've heard you say. My nation is mine, and you do not have to explain the way you choose to play the game. For the simple matter that I really don't appreciate any nation telling me how I should best play this game.

But in time I think you'll see that there is a lot more that can be done than worrying about game stats. Either that, or you'll get tired and leave.

As for your comment on cancer risk v. AIDS risk. For a trip to a free clinic, you can get a free condom and reduce the risk of getting HIV. With a bit of practicing other safe sex techniques your chances go down. Having lost family members to cancer, I'm very offended by your belief that they could have done something to reduce their cancer risk as easily as you can reduce the risk of HIV infection.

This by no means makes HIV / AIDS not a serious illness. And this by no means is a judgement on my part on those who are infected. But the reality is there are things you can manage for and for relatively low cost. There are other things you can't deal with nearly as effectively.

The resolution at hand really is a research proposal. True, it stimulates military research, but that does not imply that the research is not benefical.

Anyway, you've managed to divert the topic from by your belief that cancer risk is easy to avoid.

By saying that we should not research ways to avoid extinction level events, you are saying: your risk of getting a STD is low. Don't use protection. Who cares if the STD you get happens to kill you?

The cost of building a platform will be spread out over time, and the level of commitment is voluntary. If you want to argue otherwise, I suggest you take it up with a Moderator and show that this resolution will not be voluntary and is a game mechanics violation. Otherwise the text speaks for itself in my eyes.

On a final note: I've noticed you really are going at the sponsor of this resolution. You might want to stop for a second and think if you are taking this all a bit too personally. The reason I say this, is because any adult who is going to: (1) tell somebody else how to play this game, and (2) try to argue that cancer and HIV can be managed the same way, really has IMHO lost any ability to reason out his arguments.

Yes, I know you did not directly say cancer and AIDS are the same thing, but you are confusing the way we manage for the risks of two very painful and real illnesses. They are treated differently even though they are both lethal. But the key point you failed to address is that there are ways to reduce your risk for either illness. Why not practice them?

10kMichael

The UN cannot wield that much power. With laser weapons in space the UN can effectively impose it's will on any nation in the world.

Heed Oppenheimer's warning when he discovered the implications of the atomic bomb:

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."

The UN cannot wield that much power. With laser weapons in space the UN can effectively impose it's will on any nation in the world.

Heed Oppenheimer's warning when he discovered the implications of the atomic bomb:

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."

For those sticklers for details out there, I have edited the thread's title to reflect the recent progression of events.

Cheers.

Unfortunately, my learned colleague, we are not discussing a resolution on world health. Rather, we are discussing giant railguns and rocket launchers in space. My criticism was of the aptness of your analogy, not whether we should all be practicing safe sex.

As for your comment on cancer risk v. AIDS risk. For a trip to a free clinic, you can get a free condom and reduce the risk of getting HIV.

And your analogy still fails. An international weapons platform is not free down at the clinic. It is costly, very costly, and it protects against a threat that is extraordinarily unlikely.

My contribution to your fallacy of scale was to amend the analogy, replacing HIV with CJD, which is a much more realistic comparison.


Having lost family members to cancer, I'm very offended by your belief that they could have done something to reduce their cancer risk as easily as you can reduce the risk of HIV infection.

Whine whine whine. “I'm SO offended! How DARE you!” This is sort of like an ad hominem attack in reverse. I've also lost beloved ones to cancer, but don't shy away from using its specter allegorically. Also, if you'll recall, you were the one who originally brought cancer into the analogy.

(Incidentally there are things people can do to reduce their cancer risk, such as exercise regularly, eat more vegetables, refrain from smoking, and so on. Lifestyle changes. Just like with HIV. See? They're much closer than you realized.)


The resolution at hand really is a research proposal. True, it stimulates military research, but that does not imply that the research is not benefical.

“War. What is it good for?”

Hint: the question is rhetorical. The correct answer is “nothing”.


Anyway, you've managed to divert the topic from by your belief that cancer risk is easy to avoid.

No you managed to divert yourself. I didn't take issue with your comparison of cancer to the inevitable destruction of out planet by our own civilizations. In fact, as silly as comparing HIV with an incoming asteroid may be, comparing our gradual self-termination with cancer is equally profound. Bravo!


By saying that we should not research ways to avoid extinction level events, you are saying: your risk of getting a STD is low. Don't use protection. Who cares if the STD you get happens to kill you?

Yes! Exactly! I'm all for the space rock. Let it hit us and why not? It'd do the world some good. I'd be all for HIV and cancer too, if they managed to eradicate our species, but unfortunately they don't. They just lead to slow, excruciating deaths for a fraction of the population. Pity that. The best we can do is try to cure them and hope for something grander.


The cost of building a platform will be spread out over time, and the level of commitment is voluntary.

It is NOT voluntary! How many times do I have to say that? Just as there are limits to this game there are limits to the reality it mimics. In that sense it's a splendid simulation. Just as in the real UN legislation can be written containing legal fictions that amount to nothing, so here the same. As above, so below.

In the real UN, and in NationStates, I can write a resolution promising my finance the moon, and you can pass it, but no matter which venue it gets vetted in she still doesn't get the moon.


On a final note: I've noticed you really are going at the sponsor of this resolution. You might want to stop for a second and think if you are taking this all a bit too personally.

That's politics!

The reason I say this, is because any adult who is going to: (1) tell somebody else how to play this game, and (2) try to argue that cancer and HIV can be managed the same way, really has IMHO lost any ability to reason out his arguments.

I'm sorry, but if you're writing long posts to the NationStates forums you've lost the moral standing that allows you to question my adulthood. Nice try, though.

Yes, I know you did not directly say cancer and AIDS are the same thing, but you are confusing the way we manage for the risks of two very painful and real illnesses.

I know you are but what am I!

I know you are but what am I!

It is frankly sad that you fight your arguments that way. I can honestly say that I've now lost any respect I may have had for you or your nation.


As I said before, I am offended by the way you equate the risk of managing cancer with that of HIV / AIDS. They are completely different.

Furthermore, the idea of treating a global threat like one of an individuals health is appropriate. Especially when dealing with people who's arguments rely on second grade school yard banter like yours above. Both cases are risk management management.

From Econ 101:

Hazard = Risk x Cost


The way you reduce the Hazard of getting HIV / AIDS is to practice safe sex, smarter drug use, or find other ways to minizime being exposed to the HIV virus.

While eating smarter and not smoking are a few ways to reduce your chance of getting cancer, cancer risk is often genetic. The risk is harder to manage, thus the hazard can not be reduced.

You keep saying that the cost of this platform is going to be large. There is nothing to suggest that the nations that volunteer to be a part of the program will contribute huge amounts of resources.

I find it ironic that you've been literally whining about how the resolution's sponsor is a liar, and yet here you are equating the risk of cancer to that of AIDS (something no medical professional would dream of) and now you are making up the cost of a program I highly doubt your nation will participate in.

I take it back, I don't find your nation's position ironic. Rather, I find your statements childish and hypocritical.

If you don't understand that it is cost effective for governments to promote safe sex campaigns to manage the risk of a fatal illness and thereby reduce the hazard of fatalities, and if you don't understand that compasionate societies are looking for ways to manage cancer risk (though the problem is enduring), then clearly there is little point in illustrating why there is a need to access and manage the risk from even regional level celestial collisions.

Nobody has once suggested that a plan would be put into place in a decade or less. But to continually delay work on this issue, is increase the cost to future generations. I really don't see how you can attack the author of this resolution for saying things that aren't facts as if they are, and yet you've done so on both this resolution and again by comparing AIDS to cancer.

10kMichael

You can tell a delegate has become, er, impassioned when he repeats his post six times.

I know you are but what am I!

It is frankly sad that you fight your arguments that way. I can honestly say that I've now lost any respect I may have had for you or your nation.

In context of the previous statement about adulthood it was a deliberate irony. My humble apologies if it went over your head.

Speaking of irony..

I find it ironic that you've been literally whining about how the resolution's sponsor is a liar,

He's been saying, over and over, that if a nation abstains, or votes nay, they won't pay. But they will pay. You can call that a "misstatement" or something else more palatable to the career diplomat, but here in ClarkNovinia we call it lying.

and yet here you are equating the risk of cancer to that of AIDS (something no medical professional would dream of)

They would if they were discussing scale. Compared to the risk of sCJD cancer and HIV are equivalent, or at least in the same ballpark. The risk of the earth being struck by an asteroid large enough to wipe us out is equivalent to the risk of you coming down with sCJD. The risk of us wiping ourselves out with our own technological "progress" is equivalent to someone with cancer dying of it.

But that wasn't your analogy. Your analogy was "why protect against aids when we might die of cancer?". Well we've already got cancer. It's called "industrial civilization" and we're dying of it. A more apt analogy would be "Why wear a condom when we -are- dying of cancer?"

Who could argue with that?

Oh wait, you would.

and now you are making up the cost of a program I highly doubt your nation will participate in.

But that's the point. If this passes my nation WILL participate in it, whether we want to or not. We might not get to say where the gunbarell's pointed, but we'll still foot the bill.

Along with every other peace-loving nation that votes against it.

And to round this all off, I didn't make up any cost at all; only said that whatever the figure would be, it would be high. If you think an SDI comes cheap I'll sell you a bridge over the river Nova for a quarter of the price.

That'll make a nice retirement package.

I'm going to preface this to say that I'm threw responding to that delegate who's arguments really have been nothing but insults towards myself and others. We are all mature enough to see who is trying to rationally discuss the issue and who is really here to screw around.

When I first read the draft proposal I had some recommendations to change the resolution, but when I took the time to look at the resolution it really is pretty good. Please trust me, as I believe I've established a reputation in weeding intrusive resolutions from well thought out ones.

First, the resolution is a UN edorsement for nations to volunteer to be part of a space program. If you think it forces every nation to join, then you should complain to the forum moderators for clearly the resolution says it doesn't do this.

[OOC: The truth is this is a game. The game stats and options that resolutions have are limited. It really is impossible for moderators to proofread every resolution. And it really would be pointless to play this game and pretend that there is a UN, if you can't adopt resolutions -- some of which will be modeled on real UN resolutions and ideals. Meaning the idea of a voluntary resolution is what the real UN is based on.]

Second, there is nothing in this resolution that says how much the defense platform will cost. But there is an indication on how money will be spent on the platform. Nations that are already interested in space, will probably join the program in order to work with other nations. Nations that aren't interested in space exploration will probably not contribute to the platform.

[OOC: You all should have had your national space program issue by now. Some of you probably are tired of seeing that issue. The point is, you've already made a national decision to have a space program or not. I assure you that many of us have space programs and resources to spare. Look at our game text and tax rates.]

Third, some people will say that it is pointless to start planning now. They are misleading you again. It certainly would be pointless to stop all existing programs and work full-bore on this project. But the wonderful thing is, most of us come from nations where we spend our money where it is needed most. For those of us with surpluses in our economies, investing a bit of research into a foundation now *will* save money in the future.

[OOC: A real world example would be California's State Water Project. The bonds that paid for the construction of the SWP in the 1960s have been paid off. The project now generated REVENUE for the state. The cost of building the project today is several orders of magnitude larger than it was in the 1960s. The same is true of most all governmental projects in developed nations like the United States.]

Unlike the two previous resolutions, this resolutions strength is in its vague details. The other resolutions took resources in response to immediate crisis: education and organ donations. They didn't define the terms for either program. Now here is a resolution that takes a smaller amount of resources for a long-term crisis.

I submit that if you voted yes on the two previous resolutions, then you should recognize that this resolution also responds to a problem. Though the risk of an asteroid hitting the Earth in the next 1 to 10 years is low, the hazard or consquences of one hitting the Earth are global in scale. The way you decide to prepare for a probabilistic event is you spend money in level to the probability of the event and the cost of its outcome.

If you voted no on the two previous resolutions, the same justification of spending money to avoid a hazard applies, but instead of the previous resolutions where your nation was FORCED into the program, here the resolution clearly states that nations only need to give what they want.

So I'll leave this thread now and look for a link to a probabilistic management example. [OOC: It is too bad I don't have my thesis on drought management in electronic form, since I included several sections on the basics of probabilistic extreme event management through use of decision trees. Oh well, if I had a web site, I could always upload scanned imagines from my hardcopy. But I'll hunt around, because the idea of probabilistic management would really give each of you the tools necessary to decide if you want to contribute or not.]

10kMichael

I most certainly appreciate the kind words from my esteemed colleague from SCOS OJ. While we have been at complete odds during this debate, and have been "going at it" for the better part of two weeks now, I like to think that together we have opened and laid bare this resolution. By dissecting it like we have, I hope we have help our fellow delegates to make informed decisions--whether for or against.

Now, on with the show....

We of course have to discuss and learn about government and politics through the real politik model, as that is the world as it is. However, I also offer my own caveat to that: "People will be quick to tell you that life is unfair--and it is. But the day you accept that is the day you doom it to stay that way."

That is why I am so adamantly against the decisionmaking authority of the platform. Making a nation sign on to protect their right to vote is wrong. If you are so sure that nations will make the rational choice if the unthinkable should present itself (and you could be right) then trust the UN proper to also make that same rational decision. This would be a UN project. Under a UN mandate. Constructed under UN auspices and with UN member resources. Thus I maintain that the UN should decided when and how it gets used....not just a selection of nations. This is the way it should be--and if we have to suffer a brief delay to make this correction and then resubmit, then so be it.

We cannot continue to pass resolutions that we know could have been better. Let's correct this one and feel better about it. Let's stand up to the forces that say "life is imperfect-get used to it" and know that this time, with this resolution, we did what we could to make it perfect....to make it fair!

Dunlend

That is why I am so adamantly against the decisionmaking authority of the platform. Making a nation sign on to protect their right to vote is wrong. If you are so sure that nations will make the rational choice if the unthinkable should present itself (and you could be right) then trust the UN proper to also make that same rational decision. This would be a UN project. Under a UN mandate. Constructed under UN auspices and with UN member resources. Thus I maintain that the UN should decided when and how it gets used....not just a selection of nations. This is the way it should be--and if we have to suffer a brief delay to make this correction and then resubmit, then so be it.

While I don't feel it necessary for the UN to have authority over the platform, I'm assuming that when you talk of UN decisions concerning the platform's use, that you are suggesting that these decisions be made on a majority basis? Super majority?

My nation is wary of many of the recent UN decisions, and thus feels that a super majority would be called for. One of the things that I liked about the current resolution is that it gave every nation a veto power, but also restricted the platforms use to celestial objects.

10kMichael

An excellent question, Mikivitiy.

The current resolution calls for "full consensus" (which is where we get the veto power idea, yes?). That could stand and we can trust in your argument that nations will make the right decision if faced with the unthinkable. Either way, I would think the more votes the better, so super majority would certainly be an acceptable alternative--either way, everyone has a vote.

Dunlend

An excellent question, Mikivitiy.

The current resolution calls for "full consensus" (which is where we get the veto power idea, yes?). That could stand and we can trust in your argument that nations will make the right decision if faced with the unthinkable. Either way, I would think the more votes the better, so super majority would certainly be an acceptable alternative--either way, everyone has a vote.

Dunlend

:)

Though it has taken us weeks, I think we are in complete agreement that getting more nations to have a say is a good thing.

And with that in mind, since the resolution can't be changed, I think that should it not pass (and I can't call this one) that we now have an idea on what to work torwards improving.

Though I hope you'll forgive my nation, but we still are planning on voting in favour of this proposal. But at the same time, I'd like to remind everybody that in the case of a vague resolution it is possible to define things in a future resolution, as Hersfold and my nation are trying to do with respect to the UN Educational Committee (though I fear we will not get enough endorsements on the current proposal).

10kMichael

The People's Republic of Miko Mono scoffs at the notion that a "vague" proposal concerning a massive and costly plan to place weapons in space -- weapons that can just as easily be turned earthward to terrorize peaceful countries -- is somehow worthy of support.

The Miko Mono Politburo cannot but wonder as to the motives of those countries that offer such vocal support for the "vague" proposal, and the inherent loopholes it will contain. We call on other UN members to fiercely resist this ever-more-clear attempt to coerce peacful and small countries into paying for the tool of their own subjegation by such duplicitous and militaristic nations!

1. Operation is by full consensus, this is not at all vague, rather, it is expressly explicit (yes, redundant). Any nation has veto power over its application.

2. Participation is voluntary and beyond that, even among participants, contributions are made on a good faith basis. There is no coercion or compulsion, as laid out by the explicit terms of the resolution.

I encourage all interested parties to read the earlier pages of this thread as I believe more of the arguments have been fleshed out there.

The People's Republic of Miko Mono has yet to see the supporters of this unheard of plan to place weapons in space, which belongs to the peaceful and common good, simply explain why the need to protect against a near-impossible asteroid strike trumps the concerns of peaceful nations of having a weapons platform overhead capable of being used for aggression?

SPACE DEFENSE INITIATIVE

RECOGNIZING, the calamitous consequences of an asteroid striking the Earth;

(...)

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

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


Considering that we are cutting our national defense budget,

Considering that we do not believe that any technology that could protect us against such interstellar objects is available and useable,

Preferring to spend our taxpayers' money on the wellbeing of our and befriended nations,

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda votes against this resolution, and urges all other nations to do the same.

Regards,

UN Ambassador of the PRG Groot Gouda

SPACE DEFENSE INITIATIVE

RECOGNIZING, the calamitous consequences of an asteroid striking the Earth;

(...)

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

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


Considering that we are cutting our national defense budget,

Considering that we do not believe that any technology that could protect us against such interstellar objects is available and useable,

Preferring to spend our taxpayers' money on the wellbeing of our and befriended nations,

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda votes against this resolution, and urges all other nations to do the same.

Regards,

UN Ambassador of the PRG Groot Gouda

The People's Republic of Miko Mono has yet to see a single supporter of this proposal, whose motives we are increasingly questioning, explain this:

How does the need to defend against a nebulous and near-unlikely event such as an asteroid strike superceed the concerns of smaller, peaceful nations regarding the possibility of a massive weapons system overhead capable of being used against them?

The People's Republic of Miko Mono has yet to see a single supporter of this proposal, whose motives we are increasingly questioning, explain this:

How does the need to defend against a nebulous and near-unlikely event such as an asteroid strike superceed the concerns of smaller, peaceful nations regarding the possibility of a massive weapons system overhead capable of being used against them?

The People's Republic of Miko Mono has yet to see a single supporter of this proposal, whose motives we are increasingly questioning, explain this:

How does the need to defend against a nebulous and near-unlikely event such as an asteroid strike superceed the concerns of smaller, peaceful nations regarding the possibility of a massive weapons system overhead capable of being used against them?

Clearly then the People's Republic of Mono Mono has not read the resolution or the dozens of earlier posts in the thread.

1. The probability of the harm, over time, becomes non negligible and the gravity of harm is without compare.

2. The resolution specifically states that the platform would be used only against orbital objects.

3. Operation is by full consensus so any single nation could veto any proposed improprietous use.

The People's Republic of Miko Mono has yet to see a single supporter of this proposal, whose motives we are increasingly questioning, explain this:

How does the need to defend against a nebulous and near-unlikely event such as an asteroid strike superceed the concerns of smaller, peaceful nations regarding the possibility of a massive weapons system overhead capable of being used against them?

Clearly then the People's Republic of Mono Mono has not read the resolution or the dozens of earlier posts in the thread.

1. The probability of the harm, over time, becomes non negligible and the gravity of harm is without compare.

2. The resolution specifically states that the platform would be used only against orbital objects.

3. Operation is by full consensus so any single nation could veto any proposed improprietous use.

Overturn the proposal!

Go the revolution!!


:twisted:


*waves banner*

Clearly then the People's Republic of Mono Mono has not read the resolution or the dozens of earlier posts in the thread.

1. The probability of the harm, over time, becomes non negligible and the gravity of harm is without compare.


But the chance of actually being able to do something about it, is minimal. Perhaps we shouldn't even consider that, but focus on other options instead.


2. The resolution specifically states that the platform would be used only against orbital objects.


But there is no garantuee that it couldn't be abused.


3. Operation is by full consensus so any single nation could veto any proposed improprietous use.

Again, abuse is still possible. And then there wouldn't be a veto, because the nation or terrorist group controlling the SDI would wield a *terrible* weapon.

The peaceloving People's Republic of Groot Gouda still sees only danger, and no advantage, to justify support for this resolution. On the contrary, we fear that the optimism of the supporters of this resolution seems to make them blind for any negative consequences.

Regards,

The UN Ambassador of the PRoGG.

Ladies and Gentlemen, do you not realize the magnitude of this bill? The only reason for a large organization such as the UN is to achieve what individual nations cannot. Have we forgotten that national coalitions were initially military alliances, to defend against common threats? By being in the UN, you are obviously more involved than other nations, who have not seen the virtues of working together. We have the opportunity to do what I believe is the first, 100% beneficial action for all nations involved. There will be no radicle changes that may incite revolts. No one's sovereignty is being violated. In fact, it's being expanded, as there is one less front to potentially have to fight a war on. Yes, there is possibility for abuse, but that's why we want the UN to build it, no a single region or militaristic alliance of regions. I must attend class Calc 3 now. May the wind be to your back.

Liar..


..GO THE REVOLUTION!!

The People's Republic of Miko Mono praises Of the New Empire and Groot Grouda for their show of solidarity against this foolish proposal.

We also cannot help but ridicule the notion that simply because ther UN resolution would "specifically state" that this massive weapons system will only be used against orbital threats that we should feel assured. While some countries may feel the need to abdicate their self-defense responsibilities to legalistic clauses, the People's Republic of Miko Mono has nothing but scorn for them and will NEVER follow suit.

Can you not all see what could happen with such a platform!? If anyone could get a hold on it, the destruction would be immense. It is, in fact, the perfect terrorist weapon.

I propose instead, that every nation deal with the asteroid when it comes. If, indeed, one does, we can deal with it then: we often have a lot of warning, so we can figure something out then. For instince, we could all send a token force of nuclear divices to destroy it. But a centralized weapons platform is an accident waiting to happen.

Can you not all see what could happen with such a platform!? If anyone could get a hold on it, the destruction would be immense. It is, in fact, the perfect terrorist weapon.

I propose instead, that every nation deal with the asteroid when it comes. If, indeed, one does, we can deal with it then: we often have a lot of warning, so we can figure something out then. For instince, we could all send a token force of nuclear divices to destroy it. But a centralized weapons platform is an accident waiting to happen.

I propose instead, that every nation deal with the asteroid when it comes. If, indeed, one does, we can deal with it then: we often have a lot of warning, so we can figure something out then. For instince, we could all send a token force of nuclear divices to destroy it. But a centralized weapons platform is an accident waiting to happen.

Although my nation is, like you, against this proposal, we would like to point out that our reasons are somewhat different.

For a start, we fear that an asteroid would be unforeseeable, despite our attempts to do so. It is simply impossible to survey the whole universe.

Secondly, should an asteroid approach the earth, we doubt that the american movie tactic of nuking it will not work, or even make matters worse.

OOC: Hey, it worked in Armaggedon, didn't it?


I do see your point. This was merely a suggestion, not a solid course of action.

My point was that there is no way that the platform could remain completely neutral.

Interesting point Miko Mono. Answer me these questions then.

1) What is preventing a concerted attack by nations who already have space baised weapons? What's preventing a "Secret Union" forming to turn their weapons against others.

2) Although you call it a Near-Impossible situation. What would you say caused the Arizona Crater? The Siberian Blast in 1947? Our Astronomers have determined that the moon is still being struck by asteroids. The latest one only being little over a thousand years ago (almost Yesterday in Cosmic terms.) My question is this. Should another asteroid approach THE WORLD on a course that will bring it in contact with THE WORLD, would you say that we would be adequetly protected?

3) Should an asteroid poise a threat to THE WORLD, would individual nations be willing to expend their arsenal to defeat such a threat when they know their neighbors may "withhold" firepower with the aim to becoming a world power?

4) Are you saying that all the UN Members will stand aside as a powerful weapon is misued and turned on others? Will you sit ideliy and watch?

Should a cosmic event occur (Asteroid Strike, Alien Invasion, ect.) It would affect everyone. Whether they be nice or aggressive... everyone pays. With the UN in control and the resolution specifically stating that it will be used against Planetary Threats, any attempt to subvert the system for personal gain would be stopped by other UN Members. (not to mention that together, those with space based weapons would outnumber the UN platforms.) and such an event will be the beginning of the end for the UN.

The weapons can be hard-coded (programmed) not to target the planet no matter what the situation. Fail-safes can be installed. You risk everyone for small fears that can be worked around.

DP
(damn Forum timeouts)

Itchy Knee, i hereby suspect you of covert terrorism and/or support of terrorist groups.

Cease your support of this terrorist-weapon.

Respect éternel,

TNE

As I've posted before on this thread, as the world is getting safer we SHOULD be disarming, not building more weapons! Also, I watched a video about space matter colliding with the earth . . . it said the odds were astoundingly long that such an event would happen. So I will vote against it

With regards to the current United Nations Resolution, on a Space Defense Initiative, the Government of Nainamo is completely against the Militarisation of Outer Space.

As a nation that has not yet undertaken space exploration ourselves, and relying on benevolent partner countries to provide us with such everyday services as weather forecasting, communication and a plethora of other services that would be unbelievable only forty years ago, we would be extremely worried about a multitude of no doubt massive weapons just 200 kilometres above our heads.

Any nation that contributed to such a system, perhaps the top four or five in the world, would have a veto over at least hundred or so others [OOC, IC there are thousands] that do not yet have the technology. The military budgets to defend against others on our own planet are in the trillions of dollars already, would the poorest country really be expected to contribute fully to the project? Wouldn't it be money better spent or saved to relieve Third World debt?

Nainamo does not yet see the technology that would save us from an asteroid anyway. This government sees it as a way for certain nations to have their own, non UN sanctioned, space defense systems subsidised by the rest of the world.

Although globally our country is probably small and insignificant, we hope that our views are agreed to on a wider scale. We will be lobbying our Pacific delegate to vote against this proposal.

John Bannister, Nainamo Foreign Minister
speech to UN General Assembly, 15 April 2004

Interesting New Empire... Terrorism huh? I at least, don't support resolutions built to remove national leaders ability to govern their people. Nor do I support resolutions that try to force nations into being what they are not. I also see the need for a unified defense against a planetary threat.

And as you are doing personal attacks against my integrety...

May I remind you of the saying, one man's terrorist is another man's Resistance Fighter.

I for one do not glorify conflict by making my national animal a Resistance FIGHTER!

Before you call me a terrorist, my fellow delegate... LOOK IN THE MIRROR!

Ahh, Now... WHile I understand the fears of such a weapon falling into the wrong hands, again safeguards can be put in place, however, if and when a meteor hits, what will you say to the survivors? Can you look them in the eyes and honestly say the UN did it's best and took every precaution?

[OOC] by the way, in ARMAGEDDON, they drilled holes and blew the asteroid from the inside.

I call upon my fellow non-Liberal states to stop this resolution. The Liberal UN have "reaffirmed" their hatred for great Axis of Evil powers in this resolution; therefore, we must not let it pass.

Yes friends! Ban together to strike a blow of hatred against the Liberal UN! A united Fascist front can destroy this resolution!

So think about it, won't you? I'm sure you'll find that we can hurt the Liberals a little more if you just do us all a favour and vote no. There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

As I read the resolution I am given to understand that if this proposal passes, those nations that signed on to support the resolution will havs access to the station, hopefully in order to further "peacefull" research.
Also, I may not be the oldest nation here, but I do consider myself fairly well educated. However, I could not make out what the last line of the resolution was intended to mean. If someone could please clarify these issues for me I would appreciate it.

Alaric the Red
Supreme Commander of Deagol Deaod

As I read the resolution I am given to understand that if this proposal passes, those nations that signed on to support the resolution will havs access to the station, hopefully in order to further "peacefull" research.
Also, I may not be the oldest nation here, but I do consider myself fairly well educated. However, I could not make out what the last line of the resolution was intended to mean. If someone could please clarify these issues for me I would appreciate it.

Alaric the Red
Supreme Commander of Deagol Deaod

As I read the resolution I am given to understand that if this proposal passes, those nations that signed on to support the resolution will havs access to the station, hopefully in order to further "peacefull" research.
Also, I may not be the oldest nation here, but I do consider myself fairly well educated. However, I could not make out what the last line of the resolution was intended to mean. If someone could please clarify these issues for me I would appreciate it.

Alaric the Red
Supreme Commander of Deagol Deaod

As I read the resolution I am given to understand that if this proposal passes, those nations that signed on to support the resolution will havs access to the station, hopefully in order to further "peacefull" research.
Also, I may not be the oldest nation here, but I do consider myself fairly well educated. However, I could not make out what the last line of the resolution was intended to mean. If someone could please clarify these issues for me I would appreciate it.

Alaric the Red
Supreme Commander of Deagol Deaod

To remain seized of the matter just means that the UN will still exercise control of the project, and reserve the right to consider and act upon further contingencies.

The People's Republic of Miko Mono has yet to see a single supporter of this proposal, whose motives we are increasingly questioning, explain this:

How does the need to defend against a nebulous and near-unlikely event such as an asteroid strike superceed the concerns of smaller, peaceful nations regarding the possibility of a massive weapons system overhead capable of being used against them?

The you aren't reading if you've yet to see a single supporter answer your question. A few of us already have in what I believe was this very thread (last week).

The need to defend against a TRACTOR beam or whatever we find needs to be put on the platform is countered by the fact that the platforms use can only be when all nations agree to use the platform.

If I were a small nation ... oh wait, I am, then I'd want to vote yes and contribute what I can to prevent this platform from being used on any terrestial target (which is already also addressed by this resolution).

10kMichael

Interesting point Miko Mono. Answer me these questions then.

1) What is preventing a concerted attack by nations who already have space baised weapons? What's preventing a "Secret Union" forming to turn their weapons against others.


Nothing.

And that is a wonderful point you've made. I'd like to read the reply from nations that voted no on the grounds that there nation fears they will be targeted by this. What are they doing about independently owned platforms that are designed to target terrestial objects instead of celestial.

10kMichael

Gilliamdale respectfully votes against this proposal. We are a very peaceful nation, full of intellectuals and freedom-lovers, and have no need for superbeams from space.

The people of the Commonwealth give support to all who participate in this inicitive. As Prime Minister, I will offer all of our resources in good faith, to this project. My country believes that this will encourage a peaceful response to "International Space Inicitive". Although we are lonley here in Catalina, our scientists and armed forces will work in full cooperation for the defense of Earth and our regional neighbours. We hope that any new techonological benefits will be of peace and non-agression.

In conclusion, as an United Nations observer country, we will support and send our ambassador to vote a ceremonial "aye" to the current proposal. However, our Parliament has covened and resolved, that any military alliance we enter into will shall be an alliance that will only secure and defend the Commonwealth and/or neighbours from all foreign agressors.

Miko Mono, your argument seems to come down to one thing: This orbiting platform represents a danger if it were to be taken over by terrorists, a rogue nation, or other non-UN Sanctioned organization. And it's true; if a terrorist organization were to seize control of the platform, the terrorists would have a great weapon at their disposal.

However, there are a few problems:
Firstly, it is in the interest of every nation, especially those contributing, to defend their investment. A terrorist organization would have to first launch a spacecraft of sufficient size to carry a boarding party that would be capable of defeating an entire orbital platform worth of security. That is presuming its a manned platform and has atmospheric controls.

Presuming that happens...

Gethamane expects that terrestrial emergency-shutdown stations will be present in all participating nations. Should terrorists, or a rogue nation, get their hands on the platform, it could be readily disabled.

The situation is exceedingly unlikely to occur, needless to say.
However, your argument is flawed: simply because something can be misused, doesn't mean that it will be.
Presuming you're not just filibustering (a large presumption), your country probably doesn't use guns, vaccines to many illnesses, CD-Burners, VCRs, scanners, the Internet, cars, or a multitude of other inventions which have the potential to be misused.

If it wasn't apparent within this post, Gethamane fully supports this proposal.

The people of West Pacific feel that this is a problem with the most perilous concequences for the whole planet shall we choose not to act. We also feel that some clarification is needed on how this will be built? Will only the nations with the most advanced space programs be allowed to build this with the other nations supplying funds, will it be one big orbital space platform with plenty of weaponty to take out and asteroid or will it be a serios of satellites and sensors, to give us time to choose the best action to be taken against this asteroid which could be threatening out planet. We voted in support and will provide funds, we currently have plans to launch 6 satellites into space this year, we will be willing to outfit the last three to detect the magnetic field of a nearby asteroid, if this proposal is passed that is.

As the representative of the Democratic Republic of Anarchnophpolis, I will be voting in favor of the resolution. The resolution's basis is relatively sound. While there certainly is no powerful need at present for such a device as yet, it does have potential uses outside of a military usage.

There are some concerns that I wish were addressed before the resolution were finalized. Not over security, though perhaps some precision could have been laid out regarding a security programme on this, if only to ease fears of the station being abused. That can be handled in subcommittee, but since it's unlikely that asteroids, or as it had been amusingly refered to, "Big Rock from Space", are likely to sneak up to us suddenly, the station need not be armed until that moment, may God above disallow such a calamity.

Indeed, if we are fortunate, we may be able advance space travel to meet potential asteroids far out into space before they even come within our orbit, and divert them away from the plane of orbit, avoiding the need for any.... tractor beam? Does this actually say tractor beam? Hm, why yes it does. In any case, at such a point, the station would be little more than a manned shuttle platform, which seems much more benign.

Our main concern regards economic dominance of the construction, maintenance and operation of the station. Since we all can acknowledge that this measure is voluntary, and that for the most part that only the more wealthy nations will be making major contributions to it, it's obvious that these nations will have the most input into the endeavor. For smaller nations such as Anarchnophpolis, even Herculean participation into the project would be dwarfed by larger nations. In normal situation, that would be a luck of the draw, but in the sense that this is a multinational cooperative situation, I would feel more comfortable that smaller nations will not be ignored, since we certainly won't be when the lighting bill reaches us.

Also, we would like to have had statements relating to the research done on this station as "free", that is, all research shall be accessable to all members of the scientific community, regardless of whether that nation were to contribute. And finally, since the station will have to have considerable power to accomplish it's goals, we should revisit treaties relating to the use of nuclear reactors in space, unless someone out there has secondary power sources. While our nation is conscious of all laws regarding the use of nuclear materials in space, and are aware of the potential dangers in even mishandling such materials, it would be negligent to ignore such an issue.

As stated earlier, however, this can all be addressed in sub committee, and arrangements be worked out. Anarchnophpolis will stand by this proposal.

Mangledam,
Cheif Ambassador to UN
Leinad, Anarchnophpolis

My gratitude for this display of sound reason and support.

Cheers.

Arch Bishop Aalderik, bishop of foreign affairs of Wadway's spiritual council :



This program goes against all our sacred laws. Man is not meant to travel among the heavens, nor beyond it. The heavens belong to god, and we are meant to keep both our feet on the ground. It is not our place to even think of traveling beyond the sky that we can see every morning. Such asperations are pure blasphemy. If god wanted us to travel among the heavens he would have given us wings to do so. The fact that we do not have said wings, is proof enough that god does not want us to try and reach the heavens anyway. Surely we cannot act against the will of god almighty?

The Holy Empire of Wadway votes against this proposition.

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;

Full consensus of all participating nations seems to imply that a decision must be unanimous. I could imagine that if an event was to be sub-catastrophic, perhaps a group of nations wishing material gain in comparison to the at-risk nation may wish to allow an object to strike by blocking defense in the UN.

I suggest a rewriting of the proposal, clarifying matters further, specifically designating that any orbital defense platform(s) would necessarily be allowed use only in some very specific circumstances. Striking and redirecting any large incoming objects heading toward any area where where large numbers of living entities would be affected. The devices could be used only to *protect* life, and would be illegal to use otherwise; Used to protect human life, exclusively.

To protect against abuse, each nation would have to have any equal stake in the control over such a device, such --multi-partisan-crews-- Crews decided by multi-partisan votes and array of staff pooled by votes of UN members. This is an extra-national project, so it is only right for this to be a UN issue. There is some risk involved, but every party has a stake in this. Focusing on an national control, vs. international law is irrelevent when you are attempting to correct a problem that arises from an external context that has no relations to national/international perogatives.

Without a UN measure, there is no incentive to take out an insurance policy to protect something so fragile as civilization. The impulse is to wait until someone else pays for such a project. Only a UN measure will ensure that the project doesn't succumb to inertia.

Sadly, of all the proposals, this has looked the most promising I've seen since I've joined. It also looks like it may be the first proposal not to pass. My qualms are small, and mainly have to do with phrasing and making explicit uses of devices within the text of the proposal. I however, do support this proposal, but very strongly urge an IMMEDIATE update to the language with a follow-up proposal to insure that the interests of all nations are preserved in the long run.

Interesting point Miko Mono. Answer me these questions then.

1) What is preventing a concerted attack by nations who already have space baised weapons? What's preventing a "Secret Union" forming to turn their weapons against others.


Nothing at all, we fear. Either that, or veto's will prevent the project from operating properly, wasting billions of florins of taxpayers' money. Money that should be spent on education, social welfare, healthcare.


2) Although you call it a Near-Impossible situation. What would you say caused the Arizona Crater? The Siberian Blast in 1947? Our Astronomers have determined that the moon is still being struck by asteroids. The latest one only being little over a thousand years ago (almost Yesterday in Cosmic terms.) My question is this. Should another asteroid approach THE WORLD on a course that will bring it in contact with THE WORLD, would you say that we would be adequetly protected?


The chances on any large enough object to impact are small. The dino-blasting asteroid type only happens once every 150 million year or so. This does not justify the hude expenses that are proposed.

Furthermore, our nation still isn't entirely convinced that
1) the object will be spotted on time
2) the object will be destroyed on time


3) Should an asteroid poise a threat to THE WORLD, would individual nations be willing to expend their arsenal to defeat such a threat when they know their neighbors may "withhold" firepower with the aim to becoming a world power?


Our nation would choose to invest in other technologies, enabling us to explore space and colonise other planets, rather than hope we'll be able to blast an asteroid out the way.


4) Are you saying that all the UN Members will stand aside as a powerful weapon is misued and turned on others? Will you sit ideliy and watch?


What would our small nation be able to do against such misuse? Nothing at all, because we do not possess any weaponery that could stand against this.

And if there are precautions that would prevent a nation or terrorist from taking over (which can never be guaranteed, large nations could support each other on this, and terrorists are difficult to stop), this would mean that the SDI would be overcontrolled, and it couldn't be used effectively.


Should a cosmic event occur (Asteroid Strike, Alien Invasion, ect.) It would affect everyone. Whether they be nice or aggressive... everyone pays. With the UN in control and the resolution specifically stating that it will be used against Planetary Threats, any attempt to subvert the system for personal gain would be stopped by other UN Members. (not to mention that together, those with space based weapons would outnumber the UN platforms.) and such an event will be the beginning of the end for the UN.

The weapons can be hard-coded (programmed) not to target the planet no matter what the situation. Fail-safes can be installed. You risk everyone for small fears that can be worked around.

The only solution that we see that could make our nation withdraw its countervote would be to make this project non-millitary. In other words, take of the nukes and make it obvservatory only. In that case, we might even support this initiative.

Out fears have not been taken away yet. Our nation does not believe in violent and militaristic solutions, and we look upon nations who do so with suspicion.

Regards,

Office of the President of the People's Republic of Groot Gouda

May i ask when all this Technology is not looking for bits of rock in space what else would it be used for? The reason i ask is it seems a lot of money and time for something that is searching for rocks that has one in BILLIONS of chance hitting any NATION.

heh, heh, heh...
I GOT IT!
I know how this resolution can pass and by passing It won't be expensive nor will it be the headaches everyone thinks it will be.

I can tell you how but only if you promise to seriously re-think your votes.

The money is there...
The Resources are already in place, and if not, it will be weather or not this resolution passes...
In fact, All the pieces are there to the point where voting Nay is not only foolish and a waste of money... its against the law!

Do you want to hear my Idea?

the truth is people we gotta nuke all the other planets to the gates of hell
only then will we be safe in space
so nuke nuke nuke
:twisted:

Since it's late, I hope this will clear all fears and perhaps convince you that this resolution is not as bad as you think.

this is a long one but I hope it's enlightening...

Because all UN Members are required to obey past resolutions, this will make things easier, scarier but easier nonetheless.

First starting with the first resolution passed. (feel free to look them up.)

RESOLUTION:
Fight the Axis of Evil: "... building lots of new weapons. Only by massively increasing military budgets world-wide will we be able to restore peace and global security."

translation- funding for research into new weapons are there. Infact this resolution supports the development of these platforms. By making them UN property. The cost (what ever is left that is... read on) will be split into manageable amounts.

Validity - No resolution passed after this offers contradictions.

WARNING: All Nationstates declaring themselves without defenses are in violation of this resolution.


RESOLUTION:
Scientific Freedom: Whole resolution.

Translation: The platform can also be used to further this resolution by being multi purposed. (nothing in this resolution about this platform ONLY being used for weapons/defense.)

Validity: No resolution passed after this offers contradictions.


RESOLUTION
International Space Initiative: "... Herewith are basic Ideology for the ISI: 1) a universal collective of science, manufacturing and DEFENSE."

Translation: This resolution provides the council for monitoring the platforms (read resolution for qualifications to be in this council,) supports the idea of this unified defense platform (cannot be more Universal than a joint project) and provides a safer (at least well protected) area to explore. As colonies pop up, protection can be provided.

Validity: No resolution passed after this offers contradictions.


RESOLUTION:
Rights and duties of UN States: Read Article 5, 8

Translation: Should terrorist/rouge nations attempt and succeed in capturing platforms, these articles deal with that. They also deal with War Between Nations, and as UN Property, Nations Involved cannot touch these.

Validity: No resolution passed after this offers contradictions.


RESOLUTION:
UN Space Consortium:

Translations: WE PUT A LUNAR BASE UP and we are concerned about platforms???

Validitiy: looks up... yep, the base is still there. No resolution passed after this offers contradictions.


So funding is mostly there, the resources are nearly in place. and we all have to obey UN Resolutions, any vote against this violates 2 resolutions right off the bat! And since there is no repeal process nor ways to change resolutions... they are still valid.
No matter how you translate it, SDI platforms won't cost much more since this falls into the funds for several UN projects already in place. It will further science and promote peace by being a symbol of Nations working together for a common good.

The People's Republic of Miko Mono is overjoyed to witness the rising chorus against this asanine proposal -- a chorus we hope will become a tide to sweep this misguided idea into the junk heap of history where it duly belongs. Already, a substanial number of the votes lodged on the resolution are in opposition, and we pledge to continue our efforts to ensure this remains the case.

As for those countries so vocal about their desires to weaponize space, which belongs to the common good of us all, to construct a massive weapons platform that could be turned on any of us, the People's Republic of Miko Mono is increasingly turning a wary eye against these so called "peaceful members," and cannot help but wonder if more preventative measures are needed to defend ourselves and our allies against their increasingly apparent militarism and fascism.

I am truly surprised that people are voting against this. I guess I was naive, to assume that people would actually read the proposal rather than just vote. Personally, given the title, if that was all I had to go by I would vote against.

Obviously many people do not think there should be a space defense initiative. SCOS OJ, if this fails, I would suggest changing the name, perhaps to something along the lines of "The Protection of Earth". That would get far more sheep votes.

I view this as a worthy proposal, and sincerely hope it succeeds.

Unfortunatly, if Ichi's right (and I hope he's am not) all those voting against this resolution is in violation of two previously voted in resolutions. (see Ichi Ni's previous post) Should this resolution fail. Then all it will prove is that the Resolutions are meaningless, and that the UN is nothing more but a phantom figurehead. And the peace you claim to honor so much would loose it's biggest supporter.

What bludi fool bought this up!? You seriousli expect us to vote to increase our spending on defendin ourselves against falling asteroids!? The chances of one ever hittin earth are absoluteli non existent (and dnt talk bout one for the dinosaurs becoz that wasnt an asteroid!)! Plez vote AGAINST this ridiculous proposal!

I did mention that the dinosaurs was a popular THEORY! Ok, then if it's non exsistant, what caused the Arizona Crater? Why are there so many bloody crators on the moon? Why are there reports (both present day and historical) about meteor strikes occuring. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK "FALLING STARS" AND "METEOR SHOWERS" ARE!

If you are so Damned sure the dinosaurs were not killed by meteors, then what killed them? and please show proof!

and if you read my previous post. YOU WON'T BE INCREASING YOUR SPENDING BY ANY NOTICABLE AMOUNT!

[takes deep breath after shouting]

Do I really need to repost that long thing on every new page?

Actually the dinosuars could have been destroyed by a large methane cloud that erupted from the bottom of the ocean, releasing enough methane to prevent any animal from breathing even the slightest bit of oxygen. Infact scientists have already discovered several places where there are large pockets of methane under the ocean floor, and are worried that the same thing may happen again.

DP sorry

LOL Earth farts killed the dinosaurs!!! ROFLAO

[takes deep breaths.]

Sorry, I know it's just a theory and a valid one (tho one wonders at the size the methane cloud needs to be to choke the dinosaurs, after all, at last reports, the Earth, supposibly, had a low yeld of oxygen and higher nitrogen/sulfur mix in the aposphere then. ) but the thought of Earth Farts was too much.

For all we know, it may be a combination of things. however, there is still irrifutable evidence that the Earth was struck by Space Debris in the past and to say it won't happen in the future is just plain optomistic.

To answer the guy that said that the chances of any extra-terrestrial object hitting Earth are non-existant - you are wrong. Just have a look at the big piece of rock orbiting our planet for proof of that, not only is it littered with impact craters, but it's creation was due to a massive impact (http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/9707/28/moon.collision/) in the first place! There are also craters all over Earth from past impacts (e.g. the `Cenote Ring', underneath the Mexican peninsula of Yucatan). Here's some which will come dangerously close to Earth in the not-to-distant future:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/09/02/asteroid030902
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/09/02/asteroid.reut/
http://www.space.com/spacewatch/asteroid_020907.html

Just imagine what would have happened if the Tunguska (http://www.psi.edu/projects/siberia/siberia.html) incident had happened in New York or London instead of over Siberia?

I too am suprised at the opposition the resolution is facing, especially in light of the fact that it respects national sovereignty by not making participation mandatory.

So funding is mostly there, the resources are nearly in place. and we all have to obey UN Resolutions, any vote against this violates 2 resolutions right off the bat!

It voting agains a resolution violates previous resolutions, it's a useless resolution, because matters have been arranged in the previous resolutions.

But, more importantly in this matter, our government has the opinion that wrond decisions made in the past should not be continued because those decisions have been made. Now is the time to turn the tide!

Furthermore:
I did mention that the dinosaurs was a popular THEORY! Ok, then if it's non exsistant, what caused the Arizona Crater? Why are there so many bloody crators on the moon? Why are there reports (both present day and historical) about meteor strikes occuring. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK "FALLING STARS" AND "METEOR SHOWERS" ARE!

These are mostly innocent and harmless impacts, that wouldn't reach the surface of the earth. Even then, chances on impact in a populated area are small, with most of the earth surface being covered by oceans. We find the lack of scientifical research that you have done disturbing, and suggest your nation spends more money on education, and less on millitary equipment.


The glorious People's Republic of Groot Gouda,
Office of the President.

"But, more importantly in this matter, our government has the opinion that wrond decisions made in the past should not be continued because those decisions have been made. Now is the time to turn the tide! "

Heh, yeah, right... unfortunatly, Byteck and several others rant about unable to Repeal resolutions. Wronged decisions or not, those laws are here to stay. Remember that little telegram from the compliance ministry? If you are saying you are openly ignoring those laws, then the mods have no choice but to aknowledge your violation of UN Resolutions. but then maybe I mis-read what you typed... for your sake.



"These are mostly innocent and harmless impacts, that wouldn't reach the surface of the earth. Even then, chances on impact in a populated area are small, with most of the earth surface being covered by oceans. We find the lack of scientifical research that you have done disturbing, and suggest your nation spends more money on education, and less on millitary equipment. "

Ah, so you agree that there are object that hit the earth itself. Now about my lack of education and scientific research? Tell me, what is your population at now? what will it be tomorrow? or next week? multiply that by the number of nations in the world. (being nice after all, there are nations that are ALOT bigger than you as well as ALOT smaller.)

The population is growing and that means more room is being used. The chances of these "Innocent and Harmless impacts" being in a populated area grow each day. Also, you think that just because it hits the ocean it's harmless? Ever hear of MEGA TSUNAMIS? Walls of water that can reach hundreds of feet high? Guess what causes them. Objects hitting the water at high velocity. Alaska was hit with the first known Mega Tsunami (Timber MILES inland were destroyed.) Guess what caused that one... a rock slide... down the side of a mountain... no where near the potential energy release of a meteor. Don't believe me... look it up!

DP
Dang Forums hanging up again.
hmmm.
DFHUA

Sound good.

Please vote for this resolution!

OOC:Ichi Ni, do you do Karate?

Heh, yeah, right... unfortunatly, Byteck and several others rant about unable to Repeal resolutions. Wronged decisions or not, those laws are here to stay. Remember that little telegram from the compliance ministry? If you are saying you are openly ignoring those laws, then the mods have no choice but to aknowledge your violation of UN Resolutions. but then maybe I mis-read what you typed... for your sake.

Disagreeing is not the same as not implementing.

Besides, voting against this resolution is not against any previous UN resolution. Those previous resolutions do not state specifically how the money for defence, science, etc, is to be spent. All it means is that implementing this resolution doesn't violate any resolution.

It would be outrageous if voting against this resolution would mean a nation would be banned. It would mean that all sensible thinking nations would leave the UN...

Ah, so you agree that there are object that hit the earth itself. Now about my lack of education and scientific research?
(...)
The population is growing and that means more room is being used. The chances of these "Innocent and Harmless impacts" being in a populated area grow each day. Also, you think that just because it hits the ocean it's harmless? Ever hear of MEGA TSUNAMIS?

You are exaggerating the danger. The chances on another ice age in the coming 50.000 years are higher than an asteroid destroying or badly damaging the earth and its population. Yet nobody has yet proposed a Strategic Microwave Initiative to be launched into space.

The costs simply outweigh the advantages. You have not managed yet to take our skepticism away, au contraire.

The office of the President of the PRoGG would like it to be known that we will not change our mind on this issue and will no longer participate in this debate, as all arguments seem to have been mentioned.

Also, the office of the President of the PRoGG would like it to be known that, should this foolish resolution be passed, we will participate in the development of the SDI and veto on any use of the SDI using the final clause of the resolution, stating that the UN
"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".

the office of the President of the PRoGG would like it to be known that, should this foolish resolution be passed, we will participate in the development of the SDI and veto on any use of the SDI using the final clause of the resolution, stating that the UN
"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".

So let's get this straight. Your nation is so convinced that there is no threat to the Earth from rogue asteroids that, should it be discovered that an asteroid is about to strike the planet, your nation will veto any attempt to destroy it, thus dooming all human life, purely because you don't like the wording of this resolution? :shock:

A good resolution indeed but I am worried, what does it take to some forieghn power to hack into this platform and turn its defensive power into offensive power by atttacking its enemies and maybe in extreme cases the UN? ANd manned personel on the satilite could cost billions and in a few years nations could lose interest on the project and turn the satilite to flimsy remote control. In all a good idea and resolution but it needs to be improved a bit. :?

the office of the President of the PRoGG would like it to be known that, should this foolish resolution be passed, we will participate in the development of the SDI and veto on any use of the SDI using the final clause of the resolution, stating that the UN
"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".

So let's get this straight. Your nation is so convinced that there is no threat to the Earth from rogue asteroids that, should it be discovered that an asteroid is about to strike the planet, your nation will veto any attempt to destroy it, thus dooming all human life, purely because you don't like the wording of this resolution? :shock:

Yes, Gouda is being amazingly shortsighted and childish. I'm just waiting for him to scream, "We'll bury you!" and stomp out. Then we'll be able to take care of business. ;)

10kMichael

The costs simply outweigh the advantages.

Why do you care what the costs are? The resolution clearly states:

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

If you think it's a waste of money, don't contribute or participate.

The costs simply outweigh the advantages.

Why do you care what the costs are? The resolution clearly states:


Good point, but here is a better one directed to Gouda, who likes to make threats to the Earth ...

Could you show actual proof that the costs outweight the advantages? Obviously you are opposed to this resolution, because minutes ago you threatened to veto any action (which is not joining in good faith, so you'd be booted anyways), and now you are making up numbers.

The probability of an asteroid impact is roughly 1:100,000 to 1:20,000 depending upon the size of the asteroid.

Since I'm talking about providing proof, tonight I'll actually cite numbers related to risk and hazard and damages of impacts. I'm betting you can't find a single number to estimate the cost of research / development.

So please, stop wasting our time and take your whining somewhere else ... like the make believe land where you can make up costs and whatnot.

10kMichael

The costs simply outweigh the advantages.

Why do you care what the costs are? The resolution clearly states:


Good point, but here is a better one directed to Gouda, who likes to make threats to the Earth ...

Could you show actual proof that the costs outweight the advantages? Obviously you are opposed to this resolution, because minutes ago you threatened to veto any action (which is not joining in good faith, so you'd be booted anyways), and now you are making up numbers.

The probability of an asteroid impact is roughly 1:100,000 to 1:20,000 depending upon the size of the asteroid.

Since I'm talking about providing proof, tonight I'll actually cite numbers related to risk and hazard and damages of impacts. I'm betting you can't find a single number to estimate the cost of research / development.

10kMichael

the office of the President of the PRoGG would like it to be known that, should this foolish resolution be passed, we will participate in the development of the SDI and veto on any use of the SDI using the final clause of the resolution, stating that the UN
"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".

So let's get this straight. Your nation is so convinced that there is no threat to the Earth from rogue asteroids that, should it be discovered that an asteroid is about to strike the planet, your nation will veto any attempt to destroy it, thus dooming all human life, purely because you don't like the wording of this resolution? :shock:

Because it's highly unlikely that an asteroid will strike the earth within the lifetime of our president, we do not think that there are any actual dangers.

The fact that the wording of this resolution leaves this possibility open is worrying. Of course, having said that, our nation probably won't be able to do so. But there are plenty of rogue nations who could abuse that power. And there would be no possibility within this resolution to stop those nations.

Because it's highly unlikely that an asteroid will strike the earth within the lifetime of our president, we do not think that there are any actual dangers.

OK. So you think there's no danger, there can never be any danger and, if there ever is any danger - which, thanks to some careful wording, is the only situation in which this platform could be used - you'll veto the use of the platform because the comet that's speeding towards Earth can't possibly exist. Gotcha.

We have the solution! Rather than spend all this money on space defence, we'll just issue paper bags for all citizens to put over their heads in the event of an asteroid strike, on the sound logical basis that if we can't see it, it can't plough into us at Mach 3 destroying all life on Earth.
*throws up hands in despair, wanders off to the Strangers' Bar*

-DP-

The costs simply outweigh the advantages.

Why do you care what the costs are? The resolution clearly states:


Good point, but here is a better one directed to Gouda, who likes to make threats to the Earth ...

Could you show actual proof that the costs outweight the advantages?

Considering the billions spent on the International Space Station and it costing way much more than planned, the costs for an SDI would be huge, even if all nations work together.

(see for example http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/from_search/0,10987,1101981123-140521,00.html and http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=79vup0%24lqb12%40dragon.sk.sympatico.ca

I await your figures on likelyhood of impact and the implications of such an impact for the coming, say, 100.000 years. That period is *near certain* to contain an ice age, with desastrous consequences. (see for example http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/11ICE.html?ex=1082260800&en=a56ddc81eab7347e&ei=5070%20f0dbc7b165&ei=5062)

I agree, that the costs can be 0 if a nation chooses not to participate. However, considering the dangers also noted by some supporters of this proposal in terms of rogue nations and terrorists, not participating is not an option. Not participating means no influence over how this is used. If all who are against would not participate, it would leave a huge amount of power with the richer nations, whose intentions might not be world peace and defence against interstellar objects.

We have no doubt about the good intents of the proposer, however we fear the optimism about possible abuse, and the lack of measures in the proposal against such abuse.

The People's Republic of Miko Mono continues to rejoice in the widespread demonstration of oppoistion to this misguided proposal.

While we will continue our so-far successful efforts to comabt this imperialistic and fascist attempt to place weapons in space that can easily be turned on smaller nations within the United Nations, we are also prepared to conduct more active resistance if neccessary.

Don't you think that there are more likely things to destroy our world before an asteroid ever does? dont you think that its more likely that people at an atomic war, a consious act, should be our priority concer over an asteroid colliding with earth, an accident? We should be more concerned with ourselves ravaging the planet with enviromental destruction and wars than any type of one-in-a-million chance. The cost of building a space defence system is great, while the cost of self-improvement is nothing at all.

Don't you think that there are more likely things to destroy our world before an asteroid ever does? dont you think that its more likely that people at an atomic war, a consious act, should be our priority concer over an asteroid colliding with earth, an accident? We should be more concerned with ourselves ravaging the planet with enviromental destruction and wars than any type of one-in-a-million chance.

Why can the UN not deal with a range of problems simultaneously? We've already passed a number of resolutions protecting the environment, for instance. And nuclear disarmament isn't something the UN can effectively deal with easily - attempts have been made to make members disarm, but as some nations never tire of pointing out, this just leaves the UN nukeless while the rest of the world retains the firepower to destroy us all.

This proposal sucks.

The Holy empire of Wadway fully agrees with the People's Republic of Miko Mono. This is obviously a foul attempt to create a weapons platform among the heavens, -something only the big nations will benefit from. And guess at which nations such a weapon will be aimed? That's right, small proud nations such as Wadway. We are strongly against this idea, and urge other nations to vote against too. We also ask them to consider the spiritual and religious sides of this matter. It is not our right to befoul god's heavens with evil weapons of mass destruction. Such inventions can only used for wrong intend, no matter how much the larger nations claim otherwise.

Let me get this straight.
You want me to contribute to the funding and construction of some big-ass space lasers and cannons capable of destroying meteors and asteroids with kinetic energy on the scale of several hundred megatons? Then, I am to happily turn over control of said weapon of immense destruction to the UN - a institution that is so overpopulated with uneducated masses, that it actually had to pass a resolution to require correct spelling and grammar in official documents.

Come again? I'd sooner trust a toddler with a Kalishnikov rifle than trust the UN with such an awesome destructive force. Thanks for the thought of my "security" and the world's "safety", but I'll trust to my own defenses thank you very much, and you can get funding for your giant space lasers somewhere else.

Respectfully,

Ambassador Fred Albert
Special Envoy for Prevention of the Absurd

The Most Serene Republic of BobMarleyia supports the Space Defense initiative.

I do not see why this is being debated... so I want to put in my 2 cents... my nations has over a $2 trillion dollar budget! By myself, I could easily build one... but I do not want to be the only one doing this... I do want others to help, so resorces are not used up... and I regularly spend over $60 billion! My regular spending for a day is well over $100 billion, sometimes $1 trillion!

May I just respectfully say that it is quite absurd to say that the United Nations is imperialistic? There are simply too many varied ideals in the UN to allow one imperialistic mindset to take over. That is the whole purpose of councils and Congress. To open the floor for political debate and disagreement so that one mentality and political ideal can't overpower and dominate any other causing a monarchy or dictatorship.

Now, let's just say that the UN magically agrees to attack a "little" country with the platform. A few of these "little" countries you speak of turn around and buy some nukes off the black market and blast the heck out of Paris, or Washington D.C. or where ever they like. So, there is a balance. The UN could blast a "little" country, but then again, that little country could blast them back.

Point being, with this weapon platform, the world can distintegrate itself 500 times over instead of 300. The only difference is that now we have a rapid response to incoming asteroids that would have otherwise annihilated our planet.

The Republic of Tipannia

QUOTE:

let's just say that the UN magically agrees to attack a "little" country with the platform. A few of these "little" countries you speak of turn around and buy some nukes off the black market and blast the heck out of Paris, or Washington D.C. or where ever they like. So, there is a balance. The UN could blast a "little" country, but then again, that little country could blast them back.


The People's Republic of Miko Mono can only express sorrow for the residents of any country that seems to expouse the view that it is perfectly fine to live under (literally in the case of this asanine proposal) the threat imminent destruction soley because a country has the means to defend itself.

Also, in response to the view espoused in the quote above, maybe now is the time for likeminded countries to begin developing new means of defense against the fascist views of some our fellow UN "brothers".... The Miko Mono Politburo will task our Minister of Uranium Mining with such a duty forthwith.

I can't help but notice in the actual votes the unprecidented lack of support for this VOLUNTARY resolution.

It seems to be a prerequisite of UN resolutions to demand stronger nations carry the burden for weaker nations. Perhaps if the proposal was rewritten making participation COMPULSORY for wealthy nations, these #%$#% socialists would pass it.

God forbid the UN promote national sovereignty.

It seems to be a prerequisite of UN resolutions to demand stronger nations carry the burden for weaker nations. Perhaps if the proposal was rewritten making participation COMPULSORY for wealthy nations, these #%$#% socialists would pass it.


Nope. If it were rewritten "Freedom for Endangered Species Not To Be Hit By Asteroids", and changed into Human Rights, then they'd vote for it.

A lot of people do not read the debates on this forum. They vote only on what the UN resolution will do to their nation's stats. Civil Rights for Gay Whales = Good. Weapons, Free Trade = Bad. That's why some pretty stupid resolutions have been passed - just because they said "Human Rights" on top. (Naturally, I'm not including anyone posting valid points against this proposal in that.)

Now, let's just say that the UN magically agrees to attack a "little" country with the platform. A few of these "little" countries you speak of turn around and buy some nukes off the black market and blast the heck out of Paris, or Washington D.C. or where ever they like. So, there is a balance. The UN could blast a "little" country, but then again, that little country could blast them back.

Wadway objects to this statement which seems to imply that we, the smaller countries in the UN, are terrorist-nations which buy "nukes" as you call them. I find this statement highly discriminating and offensive. We are a very spiritual state, concerned with the well being of all people, and we are against weapons of any kind. Buying weapons, be they nuclear or any other kind, is against our belief completely.

I think this shows that a lot of the more wealthy nations in the UN have a very negative and twisted view of poorer nations such as Wadway. We, the Holy Empire of Wadway, hope that these wealthy nations will realise their wrong assumptions, and change the wrong view that they have of us poorer nations.

Forwarded from Pacific Regional Board:

"We would like to express our *opposition* to the current UN resolution, the "Space Defense Initiative."

We do, indeed, feel that asteroids pose a serious threat to our civilisation; however, the shaky, untested, and highly experimental technology which this resolution *encourages* the development of is not the most cost-effective means of protecting our planet. Lets just put some nuclear warheads into orbit. Funding "the development of proper equipment" for planetary defense will require lots of financial contributions from those UN members who choose to participate, limiting involvement, and the new weapons which will surely be developed as a direct result of funded research into the fields the resolution mentions will do nothing but add to the powderkeg this world is perpetually sitting on.

Besides, we don't want to vote for any resolution that reminds us of that awful "Fight the Axis of Evil" resolution from a few years back. *That* certainly didn't help the matter of world peace.

Further, we don't like the ambiguous wording of the phrase "threatening interstellar objects" -- let's just say asteroids. Which aren't interstellar anyhow.

And lastly, waiting for the UN to reach a consensus on using any planetary defense system when disaster looms is not a very good idea in our opinion. Let's just say that a 2/3 vote in the Assembly will be sufficient. That will prevent any of those extra-paranoid dictatorships from vetoing the use of the defence system in the case of an emergency.

Sincerely,

Office of the Prime Minister"

I'm all for it. Great idea. The region of Land of the Red Army will support your resolution.

I really think its a waste of money and our resources.

Considering the billions spent on the International Space Station and it costing way much more than planned, the costs for an SDI would be huge, even if all nations work together.

(see for example http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/from_search/0,10987,1101981123-140521,00.html and http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=79vup0%24lqb12%40dragon.sk.sympatico.ca

I await your figures on likelyhood of impact and the implications of such an impact for the coming, say, 100.000 years. That period is *near certain* to contain an ice age, with desastrous consequences. (see for example http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/11ICE.html?ex=1082260800&en=a56ddc81eab7347e&ei=5070%20f0dbc7b165&ei=5062)

We have no doubt about the good intents of the proposer, however we fear the optimism about possible abuse, and the lack of measures in the proposal against such abuse.

So far the only nation to announce that they'd participate but refuse to ever allow use of the platform was yours. If there is any nation we should be concerned against abusing the station, it is yours.

Second you've illustrated costs of the station, but you've totally failed to assess the costs of not acting.

Hazard = Risk * Loss

Let's look at this [OOC: real world] report:
http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk/report/pdf/04.pdf

Let's assume that the risk is the inverse of the return period. From the table in this report a "sub-global" event occurs once every 25,000 years, i.e. a rock about 1 km in diameter. In this case risk would be: 0.004%.

Hazard = 0.004% * Loss

The estimated fatalities (no property damage, no loss in productivity of agricultural, not even costs associated with the wounded) are 500,000 lives.

Hazard = 0.004% * 500,000 ==> roughly 20 lives lost this year

How much value is your society willing to place on 20 lives / year? Bear in mind this is 20 lives EVERY year. But what would your populations shock be if instead of 20 lives lost, 5,000 lives were lost (such as what happened with the World Trade Center)? Surely your "President" (though I don't see how anybody can call a leader a president if he / she issues threats to vote no on use of a station to protect the Earth out of petty reasons such as they just don't like the station) would not want the blood of 5,000 lives on his / her hands!

Now let's look at a larger event: the 5 km rock.

Fatalities: 1.5 billion
Interval: 6 million years
Risk: 1.66E-5 % (Check my math please)

Hazard = 1.5 billion * 1/6 million ===> roughly 250 lives lost per year

This doesn't consider increases in population density. But obviously these bigger rocks are worth our attention ... 20 lives vs. 250 lives.

I've not even talked about the largest rock: the global killer, which is estimated to take out 6 billion instead of 1.5 billion.

My point is, it is great and wonderful that you *think* you know that this type of event won't happen in the next 10 years. But while your nation is willing to "throw away" 20 to 250 lives per year, I would say let's agree to build your "expensive" station.

Because the truth is those lives aren't really lost until we do "win" the celestial lottery and get hit. But instead of 20, we are talking 500,000 to 6 billion lives lost. And what sort of value do you want to put on a human life then?

I'd much rather tell my government that we've started research on tracking and managing this risk, so that when one of our nation's does dected the sub-global or global killer, that we won't be spending the years to days before impact making extra body bags, but actually attempting to do something.

This of course says nothing of whatever secondary benefits will come of this project.

BTW: read your "ice age" article again. It says that climatologists don't know what will happen. Being that I happen to know one really well (HINT: you're reading his post), I would say that when that article says "some" it isn't speaking for what most climatologists are projecting when they talk about global warming and green house gases doubling scenarios.

10kMichael

The nation of Eurogana fully supports this resolution, with or without the support of the South Pacific

OK, I'm going to redirect people to this paper. It is well written and related to the subject at hand:

http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk/report/pdf/04.pdf

Now using the math from this paper, I've found the "expected" hazard per year in costs of human lives for inaction: 20 to over 250 lives lost.

While it seems reactionary or overkill to build a space station to save 20 to 250 lives per year, read on in the report:


The level of risk to life and property from NEOs is largely related to what we choose to do in the future. If we do nothing, the consequences would be as described here. But by discovering and tracking most of the dangerous objects (at the same time improving our statistical knowledge of the remainder), and by studying further the consequences of impacts and the possibilities for mitigation, we can hope to exert some control over future events.


So this resolution diverts money to military research. FACT: NationStates does not have a game state for space exploration. FACT: Most space exploration contracting includes military research.

To be honest, the author of this proposal has the right idea.

OPINION: The United Nations shouldn't be in the business of FORCING its will down nation's throats. This resolution is voluntary. Voluntary participants are active participants.

Again, the author of this proposal honestly knows more about international politics than many of the authors and nations present. He has laid out a general frame-work, nothing more, to address a noble goal: saving human lives.

OPINION: If we work together, the cost of saving those lives every year is reduced.

FACT: I've completely discounted non-human costs, which can be even more costly.

FACT: If we don't act, future generations will have fewer options, and given the rate of population growth the costs will be much more significant in human terms.

It is the tradition for national governments to plan for the short-term and to practice what is called "crisis by management". It is a real shame too. But this is a trend that is slowly going away, not because of idealistic goals, but rather because government managers actually do see that the present value of money often is such that starting research and development now, leads to not only cost savings on the main goal of a project, but leads to many secondary benefits as well.

If our ancestors had thought ahead before they spread the plague, build huge damns, clear cut the forests, it is possible that many of today's environmental mitigation measures would be less costly. We all know this. It is really not that hard to use the same ECON 101 lessons when preparing for future risks that don't come from human interactions with the enviroment, but celestial movements.

10kMichael

From: President Nick Flies of the Republic of Libericus

This vote is one of much importance and will have a huge effect on the fate of all mankind.

The Republic of Libericus wholly supports this resolution.

The Constitutional Monarchy of Steinarama fully supports the Space Defense Initiative even if the honorable delegate of the South Pacific chooses to ignore the threat of catastrophic impacts.

For those of you complaining of costs... there is very little cost because funding for this can come from TWO previous Resolutions. Three or more if the platforms are multi purposed (defense and scientific)

For those who say that this is a waste of time. The UN placed a base on the MOON. For what purpose? Under whose control?

For those who are concerned about this being used against the UN. there are resolutions to prevent that. Procedures already set up. Read the past resolutions if you haven't yet. Besides, I think alot of UN Members will be happy to safeguard against this.

Wadway, that was an example... look at all the others who claim the "Wealthy" nations are out to screw the "little" Nations. Besides, while you may not believe in weapons of any kind (for which I applaude your dedication to peace.) Realize this will offer you a level of protection that you will benefit from, as well as all Nations - be they UN members or Not. If you feel so strongly against any "Misuse" feel free to place delegates into the committee to control the platform. We can feel secure that there will be some that are not "power hungery"

Miko Momo - Go ahead. Defense of your nation is your responsibility. Defense of other UN Nations from outside threats, however, is ALSO YOUR Responsibility.

While I am impressed with the passion with which this resolution has been defended, I cannot support this resolution.

There are real problems on the planet that need to be addressed, such as hunger and pollution. We don't need to throw our money into the black hole of space to try and soothe the fears of a small minority who are spooked from watching one too many science fiction movies.

I see a benefit to the scientific community through the advent of new technologies, including weaponry such as laser cannons that could possibly be converted for a smaller scale and used by people against people instead of giant rocks. But I only see the scientific community reaping the rewards from such a scheme. Well, them and war mongers who would love to have some new toys to play with.

And need I remind you that things in orbit have a tendency to make their way back down to Earth. I don't know about my fellow delegates, but I would be much more worried about a floating nuclear weapon falling on my people than a rock passing by thousands of miles from the planet.

While I am well aware of the fact that participation is purely voluntary, I feel that the safety risks from the proposed platform would far outweigh the risks taken by not having them.

The Commonwealth of ClarkNovinia notes again, and with considerable regret, that members of this august body are still falling prey to these alarmist, and spurious arguments for the militarization of the heavens.

The rhetorical tone of this debate has risen to a ominous roar reminiscent of approaching cataracts. Indeed, one might think from the tone that the Death Rock was about to cast its shadow across our continents. As the voting deadline approaches, so too does the intimated menace above our heads, invisible to all, but looming, hovering, breathing extinction down our necks.

This is sensationalist nonsense. Reason, however, is readily drowned out by war drums.

Here's a simple question: what protection will a missile launched from an orbital platform provide that one launched from the ground will not? In order to significantly redirect an earthbound meteor it must be spotted well in advance. A modified ICBM will reach such an object in roughly the same timeframe that a missile launched from a multi-billion-dollar space platform will. Having a missile launcher 20km from the surface of the globe won't give us much of a drop on the “Global Killer”, especially as it has to be hit at distances exceeding 100,000,000km to nudge it off course.

SDI or no, if we're surprised by it, it's already too late.


My point is, it is great and wonderful that you *think* you know that this type of event won't happen in the next 10 years. But while your nation is willing to "throw away" 20 to 250 lives per year, I would say let's agree to build your "expensive" station.


It's amazing the fallacies statistics are used to justify. The first false premise in this argument is that the risk (calculated from the most arbitrary estimations) is morally equivalent to real people, dying right now, as we speak.

The second false premise is that a weapons cluster in orbit is the only way to save these real lives being forfited by the nation of Groot Gouda every year, thanks to that delegate's arrogant disregard for the welfare of its people.

I've read suggestions from the author of this bill and others in favor of it ranging from rockets to particle beams to railguns. Will a particle beam fired from a satellite the size of a mere city block really have an appreciable effect on a meteor the size of Manhattan island?

The scales in this proposal are all wrong. This thing may be enormous in human terms, but it's dinky compared to the threat it pretends to address. Such a platform (or even better, a network of satelleties) would be an ideal weapon for terrifying dissident nations unwilling to go along with a future U.N.'s mandate. For saving us from giant rocks we were too blind to spot early it would be less than worthless. A hand grenade against a blitzkrieg. A .22 against an M-1 tank.

It will grant us no advantage that a cooperative body of military and scientific representatives, dedicated to an international, ground-based response would not.

It will, however, cost us all a lot of money.

I don't know about my fellow delegates, but I would be much more worried about a floating nuclear weapon falling on my people than a rock passing by thousands of miles from the planet.

That, my learned colleauge, is a sound judgement.

I'm a bit concerned that this resolution is probably just a militaristic ploy by earth bound nations to attempt to constrain freedom-loving peoples of 5 moons of Jupiter.

But realistically. Let's look at reality. This proposal, while having great merit, will probably fail. Somone had previously suggested that to vote "No" on a resolution would be in violation of previous resolutions. There is a certain flaw to this logic. It is not illegal to vote on any measure in any way. New measures, if stated properly within the context of prior measures, _can_ override older measures. Since partaking in this project is _voluntary_, it does nothing. However, those who take part in such a project will all have equal stake. Those that do not will have none. It would serve the each nation's interests, if this measure were to pass, for if it were to partake the activities of the "SDI" as they would then exact some control over the result.

Without this measure, individual nations can still engage in such an activity as erecting an SDI-like protection means. Or they could act in regional groups. The very fact that the resolution is optional is what i think makes this resolution pointless. It doesn't enforce anything. It doesn't create a framework. It doesn't pose a guidline. Therefore, _it_ _has_no_point! Unless the goal is to create a tangible mechanism and it involves _all_ nations' input, it is not a UN issue.

As I've suggested in the past, it behooves us propose new resolutions that improve upon the imprecise language of prior resolutions passed, and void resolutions that have been found to be destructive and/or no longer relevent!

(OOC and now that i'm done with my rant, I think I want to look for a less war-like region....)

Delegates,

Galengia, as part of the United Nations is in complete opposition to the current resolution, the Space Defense Initiative.

The underlying idea behind the resolution, the protection of humankind, is indeed of paramount importance to all nations involved with the United Nations. Unfortunately, this resolution seeks to deal with a rather unlikely, although not impossible, scenario. The idea of any type of weapons platform in space is ridiculous in essence and to consider a multi-national weapons system is further testing of the boundaries of the United Nations.

Although Galengia is concerned with the welfare of its citizens and the people of the world, this resolution is at heart detrimental to the stablilty of both international relations and economics.

The Democratic Republic of Galengia therefore stands in complete opposition of the current resoultion before the United Nations and urges other nations to seriously consider the resolution before voting.

The earth actually already has an orbital anti meteor defence system, its called 'the moon'. Its free, its highly durable and has soaked up many a space rock in aeons past. Theres even a back up system called Jupiter.

Its not 100% effective, but what system is!

Man made things in space dont tend to last long, what is the projected lifespan of this platform.. bearing in mind the cost will be alot greater than the current International Space Station... its unlikely to last more than 25 years tops.

Got to say that if this resolution fails it will be in large part due to the mentioning of ray guns and tractor beams.. id vote against on those grounds alone. Cant be done with all that scifi stuff and nonscence.

PS Im sorry if ive reraised any points that have already been discussed given the vast size of this thread I havent had time to read all of the worthy posts!! :oops:

Admitting the danger posed by the inevitability of an asteroid or meteor strike of significant force, has anyone bothered to look at the feasability of the proposed means of averting it? The kinetic energy of interplanetary objects is truly immense, irregardless of their size. A comet of only medium size and velocity would require more than the full atomic arsenal of our combined nations to destroy, and that's assuming we can even hit the thing. Comets and asteroids do not always have predictable orbits or trajectories and often have bizarre permutations in their axis of rotation.

In short, if our intent is to destroy incoming targets, we do not have the destructive capability. If our aim is to deter incoming targets by changing their orbit, we have neither the scientific knowledge to effectively achieve the correct firing coordinates, nor the mechanical ability to deliver a payload with the necessary precision.

As the goal of this endeavor seems to be the preservation of our species, perhaps a more effective approach would be to diversify throughout the solar system. I mean by that we should colonize nearby planets and moons to prevent extinction of our species should a meteor or asteroid strike the Earth. This seems more cost-effective and realistic than the proposed solution, which equates to throwing a bunch of firecrackers at the locomotive steaming down the tracks.

Hahahahahah. If Buddha can't come to the mountain, the mountain must come to Buddha.

Sure, diverting a 1km asteroid would be difficult and expensive, but compared to colonising the Solar System... ridiculous. And nobody said that hitting the things with nukes had to be the solution.

And, y'know, protecting Earth has more value than just preservation of the species. It'd protect all our nations, for one thing. We're down with that one.

Tractor cannons, energy beams?? Why not go the whole haul and simply create some kind of plasma cannon or perhaps even a death ray of some sort, maybe Star Trek had the right idea with Photon torpedoes. Anyone with an in depth knowledge of sci-fi fantasy may be able to add to this list, and maybe even the proposal as well.

For those who say that this is a waste of time. The UN placed a base on the MOON.




We have a base on the moon. Why are we talking building an oribital station? Why aren't we debating whether to outfit the moon base for this purpose? Using the moon base would cut the cost of this proposal significantly, and make it more effective.

Here are my reasons for suggesting that the Moon base be where this defense system is built.


Support systems are already in place on the Moon base.

Power, and maintenance facilities are already in place, and functioning on the Moon base. An orbital facility would require the construction of these systems. Retrofitting the Moon base facilities would only cost a fraction of the amount of money that would be needed to lift these facilities into orbit and assembling them in a zero G evironment.

The Moon provides a 'front' further away from earth than any orbital facdility could manage.

To put it in the simplest terms and worst case scenario, the Moon would offer the opportunity to have a second chance. The moon base would offer the ability to engage the threat once it is past the Moon and inside of the Moon's orbit of the earth. An orbital facility offers no such "second chance"
.
Size restrictions allow for more room on the moon than any orbital facility could ever hope to offer

Size and weight would be so much of a concern on an orbital facility as to be a hindrance. The Moon as an oribital platform, does not have this limitation. If funding was not considered, a gargantuan power plant could be built on the moon, you would be severely limited in size and scope on a power system for an orbital facility.
Also consider, many nations might not desire to have a fission/fusion reactor orbiting a mere 300 miles above them. A catastrophic failure of an orbital facility could cause great destruction here on Earth. A catastrophic failure of a Moon based facility would have nearly zero impact to us on Earth.

The Moon has gravity, a solid surface, and a stable orbit

Normal construction methods and designs could be used on the Moon. An orbital facillity would require special design and construction methods. Plus, an orbital faciility would require continous maintenance of its orbit, a continueing cost that would add to the cost of the facility for the entire life of its operation, AND add another variable that could go wrong.
The ability to use heavy equipment on the moon could also lead to a quicker construction time.


These are my main points for suggesting this facility be built on the Moon. There are side benefits as well. Expansion of the Moon base being the biggest. Overhauling the Moon base facilities for this purpose would also mean that colonization would happen much sooner.

This proposal has my support, but amending it to being built on the Moon would garner more support from the nation of Ekscalybur.

i support the issue but i thinkg that if it were possible, the money should be given little by little a year since we have lots of time

My point is, it is great and wonderful that you *think* you know that this type of event won't happen in the next 10 years. But while your nation is willing to "throw away" 20 to 250 lives per year, I would say let's agree to build your "expensive" station.


It's amazing the fallacies statistics are used to justify. The first false premise in this argument is that the risk (calculated from the most arbitrary estimations) is morally equivalent to real people, dying right now, as we speak.



Well, I've already quoted the site from which those estimations came from, they are hardly arbitrary. Or rather they are no less real than estimated costs in human lives calculated for other extreme events:

hurricanes,
tornados,
blizzards,
floods,
droughts,
heat waves,
etc.

And I've done nothing to suggest that these are not also important events.

Frankly, I'd like you to PROVE how expected hazard is inappropriate, seeing that it is what is used to justify policy level action world-wild. Oh wait, you can't.

As I pointed out before, you have accused people of lying to sway votes your way. Then when people post real reports with real numbers, you claim the reports are faulty. And yet you offer no proof.

I'd say that if there is a hypocrite here, he is from ClarkNovinia. Proponents have provided hard facts, you've provided NOTHING to date. I await the day that you actually try and support a resolution / proposal, and hope that your same childish tactics are used against you ... i.e. that people make wild claims to justify their position without restoring to proven economic decision tools.

10kMichael

Frankly, I'd like you to PROVE how expected hazard is inappropriate, seeing that it is what is used to justify policy level action world-wild.

Policy actions such as what?

In the case of hurricanes, moving beach-hugging coastal communities to safer locales inland?

In the case of tornadoes, providing for appropriate hardened shelters for citizens in poorer areas, or providing adequate, wind-resistant housing?

In the case of floods, moving poorly-planned communities and developments from flood plains to prevent future calamities?

In the case of heat waves, reducing urban pollution and seriously addressing the issue of global warming?

The only issue you list that's meaningfully prepared for by social policy makers is blizzards, and those responses tend to start and stop with increasing the size and number of snow plows.

As a whole, contingency plans for natural disasters tend to be reactive rather than creative. Blankets to the survivors rather than prevention of their peril. If these risk analysis mechanisms are so laudable there's a serious disconnect between thought and action.

Public policies for the risks you cite are lousy recommendation for your favorite tools.

This pie-in-the-sky plan is no different. It is a reactive strategy. If, as the learned delegate from the Ekscalybur suggests, a killer asteroid gets as close as the moon, it's already too late. These things must be redirected at a far greater distance, which means we must be vigilant against their threat. We need foresight to prevent such an occurrence, not a (slightly) swifter kick reflex.

Your sententious defense of your beloved risk-assessment algorithms, my estimable colleague, still fail to address the issue, and your faulty premises still stand. To wit:

High kill estimates for a singular (and highly unlikely) event are not ethically equivalent to people dying in the here and now,

A weapons platform in orbit, with tractor beams and ray guns and so on, is not a realistic defense against such a threat,

“A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets” means that all member states will pay for it, whether they vote for, against, or abstain. It doesn't matter if there's a clause in the bill saying it's voluntary. The delegate from the Hawaiian Brians, when he argues to the contrary, is being hypocritical. Or at the least, dishonest.


If pointing out dishonesty makes me a hypocrite then I can hardly avoid the charge. However, as my nation's delegate and a member of this body I cannot, in good conscience, sit by while the more credulous among our number are frightened into irrational compliance.

This is a scam, and ClarkNovinia will have none of it.

In the 1700s, the telephone was a thing of sci-fi. In the late 1800s, airplanes were a thing of sci-fi. As recently as the 1940s, space flight was a thing of sci-fi. As of right now, tractor beams and laser cannons may be things of sci-fi, but just because something doesn't exist here and now, doesn't mean it won't ever.

Are we not in the business of progress here?

The statistical odds of dying in a tornado, earthquake, fire, or even a car crash are slim. That doesn't mean you don't take precautions to try and prevent them from killing you. And just because a prevention system is not fail-safe doesn't mean it should be abandoned entirely. Seat belts don't always work. Should we not use them?

And for those of you worried about the cost, don't participate. It won't cost you a penny. Like every other UN resolution ever passed, those of us who have built strong economies will have to pick up the slack for the rest of you. At least this time we will get to do so out of self-interest rather than compulsion.

The PRoGG admires the research done by Mikitivity. However, a few issues remain.

First of all, translating the hazard into a number of lives per year is, in our opinion, not valid statistics. Because those people aren't dying each year.

Secondly, even if we follow these numbers, the PRoGG thinks there are more pressing issues to be resolved by the UN, where lives can actually be saved. Building what appears to be a huge telescope and gun in space is no garantuee for those lives to be saved. As mentioned by other states, technology is not at a sufficient level yet. The PRoGG has no objection into further research in this field, which could lead to a better proposal.

Of course, there is a chance that we will "win", as Mikitity calls it, the "celestial lotto", and a tremendous amount of human lives will be lost. The PRoGG would not like to see this happen, and will retract the statement about vetoing all proposals regarding the SDI, seeing the unnecessary commotion this perhaps too quickly uttered statement has caused. We will of course remain cautious about any developments in this field.

We still consider the risk to be too small to prioritise an SDI, despite the disaster the would follow from an impact. We prefer non-millitary options to be researched as well, before anymore time and money is spent on a SDI which might not prevent an impact, and is still open for abuse.

And on the Ice Age: that *will* happen in the coming 100,000 years. Global warming and related processes play only a minor part in that, and might delay it or vice versa for a few thousand years at most. It is still a great and certain risk, which alas lacks the coolness of space.

Policy actions such as what?

In the case of hurricanes, moving beach-hugging coastal communities to safer locales inland?


Coastal / island nations really don't have that option. But they have invested in tracking systems, safer structures, and coastal improvements (seawalls, zoning, beach maintance).


In the case of tornadoes, providing for appropriate hardened shelters for citizens in poorer areas, or providing adequate, wind-resistant housing?

In the case of floods, moving poorly-planned communities and developments from flood plains to prevent future calamities?

In the case of heat waves, reducing urban pollution and seriously addressing the issue of global warming?

The only issue you list that's meaningfully prepared for by social policy makers is blizzards, and those responses tend to start and stop with increasing the size and number of snow plows.


Not at all. Tornadoes shelters, preparedness programs, etc. are only the short-term measures. Long-term measures include government funding of atmospheric research. With those events the goal is to minimize the risk by moving / protecting the human population, again via forecasting.

In the case of flood, the reason communities are MOVED into flood plains is because the value of the land via location or productivity is such that the benefit of using the land outweighs the costs of allowing it to fallow.

Do you understand anything about economics? People aren't moving to the land because they are stupid!


As a whole, contingency plans for natural disasters tend to be reactive rather than creative. Blankets to the survivors rather than prevention of their peril. If these risk analysis mechanisms are so laudable there's a serious disconnect between thought and action.


That is the problem. Reaction during the crisis is more costly than preventing or reducing the risk. Ironically it is your position that is reactive and crisis management based.


Public policies for the risks you cite are lousy recommendation for your favorite tools.


That is your uninformed opinion.

You've yet to provide a SINGLE fact. You've demaned facts from others, but the truth is it is your opinions that are lousy and without backing.


Your sententious defense of your beloved risk-assessment algorithms, my estimable colleague, still fail to address the issue, and your faulty premises still stand. To wit:

High kill estimates for a singular (and highly unlikely) event are not ethically equivalent to people dying in the here and now,

A weapons platform in orbit, with tractor beams and ray guns and so on, is not a realistic defense against such a threat,

?A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets? means that all member states will pay for it, whether they vote for, against, or abstain. It doesn't matter if there's a clause in the bill saying it's voluntary. The delegate from the Hawaiian Brians, when he argues to the contrary, is being hypocritical. Or at the least, dishonest.


If pointing out dishonesty makes me a hypocrite then I can hardly avoid the charge. However, as my nation's delegate and a member of this body I cannot, in good conscience, sit by while the more credulous among our number are frightened into irrational compliance.

The hypocrisy on your part isn't for pointing out opinions, but rather ignoring FACTUAL points I've brought out and using OPINIONS to dispute them. That is the heart of dishonesty.

The fact of the matter is: when a government builds a new levee, it only does so when it is cost effective. Since flood events are infrequent the basic calculation goes like this:

Cost of Levee <= Risk of Flood * Cost of Damage of Flood

If the cost of building and maintaining the levee is less than the expected outcome of flood damages, governments build the levees.

It is economics 101 and called "expected value theory".

Applying this to other extreme events and loss of human lives is not only appropriate, but it actually *is* the moral thing to do as well. If this wasn't the case, there would not be a series of 9/11 hearings going on in the United States (in theory again ... since the US doesn't exist).

Governments that fail to response to real risks are irresponsible and immoral.

Again, if you fail to understand basic economic theory, such as expected value theory, I highly recommend that your nation apply to the UNEC for educational funding, because it is clear you haven't had a basic economics class.

10kMichael

In the 1700s, the telephone was a thing of sci-fi. In the late 1800s, airplanes were a thing of sci-fi. As recently as the 1940s, space flight was a thing of sci-fi. As of right now, tractor beams and laser cannons may be things of sci-fi, but just because something doesn't exist here and now, doesn't mean it won't ever.


Yes, but whether they can be made is not the issue. Kevlar cables may have unknown in Mohammed's time, but they still won't move his mountain.


And just because a prevention system is not fail-safe doesn't mean it should be abandoned entirely. Seat belts don't always work. Should we not use them?


Again, my point is missed. "Not fail-safe", isn't the right term. "Absolutely useless" is closer to the truth. It's not a seat belt, it's a strand of dental floss.

And for those of you worried about the cost, don't participate. It won't cost you a penny.

Except for the fact that it will. A very pretty one.

Like every other UN resolution ever passed, those of us who have built strong economies will have to pick up the slack for the rest of you. At least this time we will get to do so out of self-interest rather than compulsion.

Except that you won't be 'picking up' any "slack". I will pay and you will pay and he will pay and she will pay. Everyone will pay.

The clause in the resolution stating that it "URGES but does not compel all nations to participate in this endeavor" is a fiction. Our compliance ministries will drop by later to collect the bill.

The PRoGG admires the research done by Mikitivity. However, a few issues remain.

First of all, translating the hazard into a number of lives per year is, in our opinion, not valid statistics. Because those people aren't dying each year.


I can see that like ClarkNova, that your nation is having an issue with a basic principle behind economics.

One of the first google hits on "epected value theory" will turn up:

http://www.gamblecraft.com/tutorial/expval.htm
a more detailed lecutre is available at:

http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/hwarren/a503/decision.htm


I'll summarize EV / Decision Theory for you both by using a lottery example:

Q: At what pay off is it worth investing in a single lottery ticket?

Given: Lottery tickets cost $1.

EV = Probability * Cost / Payoff of Event

Let's assume that the chances of winning the lottery are the same: 1 in 100,000.

EV = 1/100,000 * Payoff of Lottery

Let's now run through a series of payoffs: $1, $10, $100, $1000, $10,000, $100,000, $1Mil.

EV(1) = 1/100,000 * $1 = $0.00001
EV(10) = $0.0001
EV(100) = $0.001
EV(1000) = $0.01
EV(10,000) = $0.1
EV(100,000) = $1
EV(1Mil) = $10

According to decision theory, the lottery is only worth risking when the jackpot reaches $100,000. Even when the lottery is $1Mil you can expect to only get $10.

The reason individuals (not governments) play the lottery is because your second lesson into economics: ultility theory changes the EV of the above calculations.

People don't mind throwing away a dime ($0.10). They do it every day. So in the above example, they don't treat ten 1/10ths of $1 the same as $1. I'm not going to bother to get into a detailed lecutre on utility theory, other than to remind you that it applies to individuals or small groups. It does not apply to populations in the millions like our nations.

Equating the "cost" of not acting, into an annual expected loss of human lives is appropriate. In fact, that is what decision theory does when we calculate the costs of not building flood protection (i.e. flood pools in our reservoirs and systems of levees).

Without going into more detail, if you believe that I have my citizens best interests at heart, let me tell you (a promise) that before I became a UN diplomat that my graduate work was in public / civil engineering and specifically addressed probablistic decision making for extreme events. Then I was a drought specialist ... now when I'm not playing the role of a UN diplomat I worry about short-term forecasting of water quality and long-term decision making for water quality protection.

Analyzing a volcanoe, hurricane, earthquake, forest fire, flood, drought, heat wave, or asteroid ... all natural events that can be managed ... through expected value / decision theory is appropriate. Not only is it appropriate, it is what governments like the "fictional" US government does. How do I know so much about the "finctional" US government ... well, on alternate Earth, I like to think that I just may happen to be a government engineer. Hmmmm ... makes you wonder, doesn't it?

10kMichael

r u all crazy r is it just me. I've (personnally) always wanted a giant ion cannon in my cuntry... now i can blast the s**t out of the english

Greetings,

Below are a few messages from the Royal Court of King Smoon:

I would like to take this moment to say shame on all of you who forget the ways of the gods! (all 56 of Smoons' demi and full gods of the 30 or so religions we allow full space to practice)

If the powers that be decide we have no more a place on this earth and cast down a stone of magnicient force - then we must accept this fate!

Arch Bishop of Smoon


We as a people abhor the use of weaponry on any level and for this reason we must vote against your resolution.

Royal Ambassador


-The Kingdom of Smoon-

As a whole, contingency plans for natural disasters tend to be reactive rather than creative. Blankets to the survivors rather than prevention of their peril. If these risk analysis mechanisms are so laudable there's a serious disconnect between thought and action.


That is the problem. Reaction during the crisis is more costly than preventing or reducing the risk. Ironically it is your position that is reactive and crisis management based.

No, Irony would be if I was proposing a comet-disaster relief fund. In this case the irony is that putting a missle platform in high orbit won't work. It won't work because there is no reasonable scenario in which having the tiny anti-comet guns 40km closer to the comet will make a fleck of difference.
It's reactive, you see.



In the case of tornadoes, providing for appropriate hardened shelters for citizens in poorer areas, or providing adequate, wind-resistant housing?


Not at all. Tornadoes shelters, preparedness programs, etc. are only the short-term measures. Long-term measures include government funding of atmospheric research. With those events the goal is to minimize the risk by moving / protecting the human population, again via forecasting.

Your selective reading here is telling. Notice that you ignored my statement about "adequate housing" for "poorer areas". Tornadoes are far worse for people who live in substandard homes. Extra fancy prediction systems do little for people who have a hard time running, and have nothing to return to.

Those with grand designs for thousand-year weapons platforms often forget little details like the poor.


In the case of flood, the reason communities are MOVED into flood plains is because the value of the land via location or productivity is such that the benefit of using the land outweighs the costs of allowing it to fallow.

The fact of the matter is: when a government builds a new levee, it only does so when it is cost effective. Since flood events are infrequent the basic calculation goes like this:

Cost of Levee <= Risk of Flood * Cost of Damage of Flood

If the cost of building and maintaining the levee is less than the expected outcome of flood damages, governments build the levees.

It is economics 101 and called "expected value theory".


In light of your earlier statement that we can't assign a dollar value to human life, these cost/benefit analyses seem somewhat, well, hypocritical.


[OOC: I've noticed that in online forums one of the most common rhetorical fallbacks is an ex cathedra argument. “Well in real life I'm a lawyer/engineer/teacher/etc and as such I'm an authority on the issue at hand”, no matter what that issue happens to be.

You like to expand it to: “You're obviously ignorant of the particulars of my field, therefore you're ignorant in general, so shut up and let us smart guys do what we do best.” Thirteen year olds might be cowed by this, but to adults it's just obnoxious.

Your argument is that if the cost of X, divided by likelihood of it happening, is equal to the cost of Y, then we should do Y. This assumes that Y will be effective in preventing X. You've mocked me for being ignorant of your econ-101ism at least three times. You still haven't addressed my logic-101ism: it's a fallacy to think risk analysis proves Y is worth a rat's ass.]

QUOTE:

let's just say that the UN magically agrees to attack a "little" country with the platform. A few of these "little" countries you speak of turn around and buy some nukes off the black market and blast the heck out of Paris, or Washington D.C. or where ever they like. So, there is a balance. The UN could blast a "little" country, but then again, that little country could blast them back.


The People's Republic of Miko Mono can only express sorrow for the residents of any country that seems to expouse the view that it is perfectly fine to live under (literally in the case of this asanine proposal) the threat imminent destruction soley because a country has the means to defend itself.

Also, in response to the view espoused in the quote above, maybe now is the time for likeminded countries to begin developing new means of defense against the fascist views of some our fellow UN "brothers".... The Miko Mono Politburo will task our Minister of Uranium Mining with such a duty forthwith.

May I just ask that you please try to make sense in your next post? I can't understand what your saying. Read your posts carefully before submitting them. And you are calling UN "brothers" facist...may I ask why? And while you're at it, try explaining your own facist views.