NationStates Jolt Archive

I propose that uranium mioning should be banned,

this proposition needs to be passed, please all delegates pass this resolution.

This will enable a safer world via way of lack of uranium being passed around and used in WMD.

A safer planet, no more will rainforests by chopped down needlessly for the need of Uranium, which holds no good for our countries.

Yes sadly we may find that Econimics may go down, yet everything else will go down, we will become better nations in the long run, and let us not forget that all nations have the same amount of oney, if they cannot spend it on uranium , then they will spend it on something else, therefore economic needs should not suffer.

Go to BAN URANIUM on the proposals, and approve approve approve.

Gazzerville

As long as were banning uranium, lets ban all those other nasty elements:
Gold- source of greed and countless wars!
Silver: Color of betrayal!
Iron: used to make weapons!
Lead: Poisions the mind, is in bullets, and is just to darn heavy!
Chlorine: Used by countless humans to commit genocide against poor little pool bacteria!

And many more...

yet these elements have sources of good, at least chlorine does - and thats the only harmful one!

i do not support banning all weapons, just WMD and banning uranium will go a long way towards completing this worldwide aim.

Though the Skeelzanian representative takes things a bit far, Anadolu agrees in principle: materials cannot be banned, only certain uses of those materials.

There are some nations that ban certain plants, for reason's sake. Minerals are not criminal; people can be, however.

Hmm, H2O provides life to our enemys, lets ban that too shall we?

Yes, please do ban the use of uranium. Since I'm not in the UN, I'll still have nukes, thus giving me an edge on you UN nations. Have fun disarming yoursleves!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *cough, hack*

Dihydrogen monoxide shoud most certainly be banned. Just look at this alarming article found on the internet:

Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

Dihydrogen monoxide:


is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
may cause severe burns.
contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Contamination is reaching epidemic proportions!

Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:


as an industrial solvent and coolant.
in nuclear power plants.
in the production of styrofoam.
as a fire retardant.
in many forms of cruel animal research.
in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.
Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!

The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.

oh lets ban breathing air too as our invaders live only if they have air
lets ban the earth too so our invaders cant invade us :roll:

the proposal, if you would like to read it, is about banning uranium mining, stop being extremist and irritating and the amount of uranium said nation can store.

I am sure nations are under restrictions on WMD at the moment, think Iraq pre war. Why cant we put these restrictions on Uranium, a key part of WMDs?

Saying Materials cannot be banned is not a good enough arguement in my opinion

lol Skeelzania :P

Dihydrogen monoxide shoud most certainly be banned. Just look at this alarming article found on the internet:

Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

Dihydrogen monoxide:


is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
may cause severe burns.
contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Contamination is reaching epidemic proportions!

Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:


as an industrial solvent and coolant.
in nuclear power plants.
in the production of styrofoam.
as a fire retardant.
in many forms of cruel animal research.
in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.
Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!

The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.


My point exactly.. (water)

okok fine

Actually, I'm pretty sure everyone can build any sort of nasty weapon of mass destruction they want without fear of reprisals. Hell, I have a virus thats tailored to kill only certain ethnic groups.

i dont know i mean look at what that guy said
members of un will disarm and then he has an edge :x

the proposal, if you would like to read it, is about banning uranium mining, stop being extremist and irritating and the amount of uranium said nation can store.

I am sure nations are under restrictions on WMD at the moment, think Iraq pre war. Why cant we put these restrictions on Uranium, a key part of WMDs?

Saying Materials cannot be banned is not a good enough arguement in my opinion

Stop being extremist? ban uranium mining is first.. and then after a while, some person says, hey lets take it a little bit futher, ban this now, and it goes on and on and on. So, going head and saying ban water, or air, is not being extremist, its simply forwarding the idea he already had in mind.

Hey, I sell nuclear weapons, so if you're interested in purchasing high quality, high yield nukes at low, low prices, contact me.

Stop being extremist? ban uranium mining is first.. and then after a while, some person says, hey lets take it a little bit futher, ban this now, and it goes on and on and on. So, going head and saying ban water, or air, is not being extremist, its simply forwarding the idea he already had in mind.

We should ban uranium because it is NOT needed. Water and air are. Uranium is used more for evil than good and it ruins the planet. yea...

Stop being extremist? ban uranium mining is first.. and then after a while, some person says, hey lets take it a little bit futher, ban this now, and it goes on and on and on. So, going head and saying ban water, or air, is not being extremist, its simply forwarding the idea he already had in mind.

We should ban uranium because it is NOT needed. Water and air are. Uranium is used more for evil than good and it ruins the planet. yea...

It also runs the econemy of some good, freedom loving countries like myself, and also helps us defend ourself from the evil imperialistic (USA?)countrys that hate us and what we stand for. Besides, you could argue that it actually does more good then bad, since in realistic wars.. it can alot of the time be used to deteir(sp) war for happening

Stop being extremist? ban uranium mining is first.. and then after a while, some person says, hey lets take it a little bit futher, ban this now, and it goes on and on and on. So, going head and saying ban water, or air, is not being extremist, its simply forwarding the idea he already had in mind.

We should ban uranium because it is NOT needed. Water and air are. Uranium is used more for evil than good and it ruins the planet. yea...

It also runs the econemy of some good, freedom loving countries like myself, and also helps us defend ourself from the evil imperialistic (USA?)countrys that hate us and what we stand for. Besides, you could argue that it actually does more good then bad, since in realistic wars.. it can alot of the time be used to deteir(sp) war for happening

Example, the usa droped the atomic bomb on hiroshima, it can be seen that this act, came onto the minds on both the Soviet Unions and the United States leaders during the cuba missle crisis, both sides knew what the ulitimete(sp) cost of going to all out war.

I think the Cold War in RL wouldn´t have remained a cold war if nukes didn´t exist. Only the knowledge that both sides were capable to completly destroying each other and the entire world led to the conclusion that a direct war wouldn´t be preferable for any side. Therefore it was avoided. Without that i´m certain that there would have been a conventional war in Europe after WW II. That would have had started in Germany (simular like the Corean War).
The balance of fear prevented war.
We see nukes still as useful and necessary to keep world peace.
We are interested in alliances with other countries and regions for defense pacts, especially those with a huge nuclear arsenal, since that makes a powerful deterent to rough states. The are going to think twice if the know the other side has nukes and could use them for reprisals.

Wake up, guys. We are not living in a peaceful. Let´s not pretend that Nation states would be only peace, happyness and cake: OK.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

We second the statements of Free Peoples Liberty.
We also want to stress that uranium is used for civilian purposes like nuclear power plants and MEDICINE. Therefore: even if you reject nukes, it makes no sense to ban the use of uranium since it is NEEDED in many other sectors.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

Uranium is also used in nuclear reactors (which is where most of it goes, as U-235 is far more prevalent in the ore then the U-238 used in weapons and for "Breeder" reactors for the creation of P-239[also used in weapons]).

Why not ban water too, since the deuterium (H-2) is extracted from water, and far more of the nuclear weapons of present are Hydrogen aka Fission-Fusion warheads using deuterium for the fusion side of the explosion...

BTW I liked the Dihydrogen-monoxide one ;) H2O :))

oh grow up, war is not a part of the game, stop role playing in here

you will not be attacked, itll make our nations better

argh

NO- one is banning my uranium, pure and simple, I've already had a concience battle if its right to rip apart my rainforests, but the prospects of quick and speedy growth are too strong, are you really suggesting to remove something that allows advancement?

No offense guys, but you obviously havent thought this one through. Uranium is also used in nuclear power plants. I would like to believe that if real, my nation would have several nuclear power plants.

You ban uranium, guess what people are going to use for power? Coal! That's right - dig it up out of the ground nasty burning acid rain causing coal. But of course, we'll all be better off by forcing us back 50 to 100 years in our energy production.

And I've said this before. When will people learn? Why do people always want to pass UN resolutions telling nations what they can do within their borders? The UN is supposed to be about how nations interact, not some big brother rules maker.

Oh, by the way. All the nations like mine who have been fed up with silly UN rule making won't follow these silly resolutions anyway. So any nation who wants uranium can simply buy it from me!

Cabinia is a peaceful nation, and we are not stockpiling nukes. However, as uranium mining is our greatest industry, it has many peaceful applications, and this bill would greatly damage our export of it, we are prepared to stockpile and nuke the primary proponent of this bill if it should pass. Please do the right thing for the people of that pitiful target and vote against this measure. Thank you.

uranium has not been used in bombs, or missiles in any war since World War 2. this is an important way of keeping national peace, because every country knows that they could be obliterated by this substance, if used correctly. And then again, why uranium? why not cobalt 60, or even plutonium, which every country has, that owns a nucleur power plant, because it is made every day in the reactor. And even further, we do not even need these substances to make outrageously large bombs. Many governments even know how to create a neutron bomb. this is about 100 times larger than a fusion bomb, which is 100 times larger than a fission bomb (i.e. atom bomb). The horrible part about a neuton bomb, is that it shoots neutrons, therefore not destroying buildings, only killing any life in a 20 mile radius of where it's detonated. In this bomb they do not even need plutonium or uranium. yes, i realize that uranium is used to create plutonium, but if we did not use this in a fission reactor, then the government would have to use fusion reactors, which cost hundreds or millions of dollars more to create, and a much unsafer. this is not meant to be a hostile reply, but I hope it gets my thoughts across.

uranium has not been used in bombs, or missiles in any war since World War 2.

The US Military uses depleated Uranium in it's tank shells.

Anyway, I must say that I am all for keeping Uranium. So are the French, as most of thier power comes from nuclear reactors.

Nuclear power, when produced correctly, is safe and efficient, as long as the waste is properly disposed of (I'm of the opinion that we should send it all to the sun, because it would be destroyed, and wouldn't really affect the sun).

If you want a more detailed explanation of the following, just ask.

The US and Soviet power plants were run differently. A Chernoble-type disaster is not possibe in any US power plant, and I can't imagine that it's possible in many other countries, either.

This has to do with the quality of the Uranium (Uranium must be enriched before it can be used in bombs or power plants).

In summary:
Nuclear Weapons - nice toys to have, not to play with
Nuclear Power - clean and efficient when the waste is gotten rid of.
Uranium - good when used for good, bad when used for bad.

Also, just a side note to "free peoples liberty" and others who say the US is an evil imperialistic country and use Hiroshima as evidence (I could prove that bombing Hiroshima was by far the best option for the US), why is it that no one thinks the same of Japan, and point to Nanking, or of Germany, and the Holocaust?
It's just anti-American ideals that aren't logical.

The choise is up to every state to decide if they want to ceep mining or not.

First, from a roleplaying point of view, I must vehemently protest a ban on Uranium mining, as it is one of the fledgling Dominion of Kazderibidididad's principal employers. Banning Uranium mining would leave tens of thousands of Kazderibidididians out of work, increasing our already worrisome crime levels.

With that out of the way...

... neuton bomb, is that it shoots neutrons, therefore not destroying buildings, only killing any life in a 20 mile radius of where it's detonated. In this bomb they do not even need plutonium or uranium. ...

Ummm.. wrong. A neutron bomb is a LOW YIELD fission device (which means yes, it DOES need Uranium to detonate properly). It does generate neutrons, but those are hardly the threat, as they can be stopped by an inch of wood - it is rather the high energy gamma rays (radiation, NOT particles) that destroy living tissue.

Furthermore...

use fusion reactors, which cost hundreds or millions of dollars more to create, and a(re) much unsafer..

Leaving aside the poor grammar, fusion reactors a) do not exist in a practical form in the real world, and b) would be orders of magnitude MORE SAFE than a conventional fission reactor. A fusion reactor would use either deuterium (heavy hydrogen) or a hydrogen-tritium mix to fuse, resulting in NO radioactive byproducts. In addition, a loss of containment merely would mean an expensive re-start of the process, but no damage to surrounding buildings or life. No radiation leaks. No toxic waste. This is "much unsafer"?

Oh, and a final point, you had your orders of magnitude wrong. As stated above, neutron bombs are of a much lower yield than even an average fission device, not "100 times larger than a fusion bomb" as you said. Furthermore, a small fusion device (or H-bomb) could produce the SAME explosive yield as a large fission device. If you're talking generally, the order of magnitude is 1000x the power. A medium-yield fission bomb will produce an explosion of 10-50 kilotons, where a medium-yield fusion bomb will result in a 10-50 megaton explosion.

As any debater will tell you, don't support a point with facts that you can't confirm. Just a suggestion.

Um, Neutron and Gamma radiation is both highly hazerdous... and a couple feet of wood would not stop neutron radiation, it generally takes about 2 feet of concrete or steel to hinder neutron radiation (all it is is free neutrons, neutrons however and the most massive atomic particle, and don't stop very easily.) Cobalt-60 also stops neutrons, (cobalt-60 is the material used for the a reactors "control rods" to absorb free neutrons in the reactor, and therefore control the rate of fission.) Also a few hundred gallons of diesel fuel-oil will stop neutrons. Lead is generally the only thing that hinders gamma radiation. wood, brick, or even a peice of fabric will stop beta particles, and your skin will block alpha radiation. (I am very well versed in contaiment from the fact that 1. I was a crewmember of a nuclear submarine, and spent a significant amount of time working around an operational nuclear reactor. and 2. being part of the weapons department of the aforementioned nuclear sub, which has the capability of caring nuclear weapons, but I can neither confirm nor deny whether or not we actually carried any; Was trained in the contaiment and handling and security of nuclear ordinance.

Also, I concur, the best that has been accomplished with sustainable fussion reactors was about 5 years ago when the tokamak in Japan actually maintained a self-sustaining reaction for 10 entire, complete WHOLE seconds. However the system is not completely safe, there is no harmfull radiation, yes, but there are two problems that could lead to massive disasters, 1) The reactor is contained in operation several hundred feet in a bunker, since when the massive superconducting magnets used to contain the high-energy plasma stream in the toroid core, are powerfull enough to pull the iron out of anyone's blood-stream in the immediate vacinity.[ THAT most CERTAINLY would not be a nice way to go] and 2.) If contaiment of aforementioned toriod field were to fail in operation, you would have a high-energy stream of plasma which would simple melt, burn, incinerate anything in it's path, causing alot of fires and death untill the plasma disipated. Not as bad as nuclear fallout, but certainly would be a headline news event if/when nuclear fusion reactors were to ever become practicle. I would also like to mention, that while ther would be no fallout from such a containment breach, deuterium is extreamly flamible, and if that stream were to reach and breach any deuterium stores at the plant... well.... Well, I'm sure everyone here knows of the Hindenburg Derigible....

After even more investigation, I have found that the outright banning of uranium mining would be disastrous for my country, for two reasons. One is that our industry is dominated by Uranium mining. Another is that our homeplanet is saturated in the stuff. Hell, even the currency has trace amounts of uranium. Banning uranium would force us to get rid of our Baskzs and redevelop our industry, which would have catasptrophic effects at best.

My apologies - you're right about the neutron radiation, but again, the greater threat from neutron bombs is the gamma radiation, because of the higher penetrative power. I had confused neutrons and alpha particle radiation.

As for the toroid fusion generator design, the risk of a plasma release is not as extreme as you might think. The reason why a sustained reaction is so difficult to achieve is because plasma doesn't like to stay plasma for long. In the event of the pressure from the magnetic fields being removed (ie. a loss of containment), the first reaction for the plasma is to dissipate. There may be damage done to the reactor (although, if it's designed to garner energy from the reaction, there shouldn't be TOO much damage), but the risks some people have trumped up of a jet of plasma burning through a city block or other such disasters are simply illogical.

But thanks for the correction on the neutron bomb issue. I must've looked quite the fool.

Oh, and my country is still opposed to the ban on uranium mining.

if tou think about it, you might actually be doin more harm to ecosystems by banning Uranium.

The main element used in a nuclear powerplant: URANIUM. If you say no more uranium, then you are saying no more nuclear power plants. No more nuclear power plants which produce clean and efficent energy, then your stuck with 1) fossil fuels (the most likely choice) or 2) an ureliable form of renewable energy such as wind or sunlight. So then we will be relying more on fossil fuels, polluting the world, much more than Uranium would.

Besides, there are plenty of other radioactive elements that can be used to make a bomb, just look at the periodic table theres got to be over 20 OTHER RADIOACTIVE ELEMENTS and we are still discoverin more.

Regardless of whether or not anyone has a good reason to ban it doesn't matter, because it would only apply to members of the UN. All other third world countries would just take it all up and sell it illegally anyways. I don't even think it should be banned, because it is not just used in WMD's. Consider the fact that those Abrams tank commanders in Iraq are heavily guarded by depleted uranium armor. What would we use instead? Iron? Stainless steel? Paper? (Oh, wait! That comes from the rainforest! :roll: )