NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a draft proposal for the amended version of the ridiculouse previouse act.

This has also been put round the forums at the ACA and Equilism for ammendments and support(and still is), but the NS UN forum is where I'm now presenting the most recent copy after reviseing it.

UN member states: Any and all comments, advice or ammendments are welcome so I can put forward a well thought out pice of legislation with your help.

I belive that taking our time to only put forward well tohught out acts is what the UN forum should be all about, so I await your advice.

UN Delegates: Your advice will be espeacily important, both because of expiriance on your part and that it will require your approval before going to the vote.

*Begins*
Control of Nuclear Proliferation Act
To regulate, decrease and curb Nuclear produce in all its forms.

Description:

This act, put together from the sensible opposition points that were raised against the End Nuclear Proliferation Act, wishes to gradually curb the production and creation of Nuclear based weapons, power sources and materials in general.
This proposal does not wish to ban Nuclear materials in the military, public or private sector within a Nation, only to curb there production and regulate the industry.

This act will cover primly:
- Nuclear based materials used in Warfare, namely Nuclear based warheads and Depleted Uranium.
- Nuclear based power sources, for standard power plants to the advanced nations who use Nuclear based drives in their industry and ships.
- All basic forms and components of Nuclear material, the unregulated black market in which these materials can be picked up and used to create Nuclear based bombs.

The production goal will be:
-To limit any production of Nuclear materials, for either a power source, military use or any other, to 80% of current levels in individual Nations effective immediately after the passing of this Act.
-That within one year, levels of production of Nuclear based materials be less than 75% of the level of production at the time the Act was passed.
- That within three years, levels of production of Nuclear based materials be less than 40% of the level of production at the time the Act was passed.
-That within five years, levels of production of Nuclear based materials be less than 10% of the level of production at the time the Act was passed.


The active use goal will be:
- That within one year, levels of active Nuclear based materials used in the military, private and public sector within a nation be less than 80% of the level of those used at the time the Act was passed.
- That within three years, levels of active Nuclear based materials used in the military, private and public sector within a nation be less than 60% of the level of those used at the time the Act was passed.
- That within five years, levels of active Nuclear based materials used in the military, private and public sector within a nation be less than 20% of the level of those used at the time the Act was passed.

This Act also requires a UN regulatory body to be set up to monitor both the efforts of Nations in reaching these goals, but more importantly, to monitor all Nuclear material within the member Nations, so that accurate records of the location, use and quantity of them is recorded so that they may not leak into the Black Market during our time of de-escalation of Nuclear materials.

This Act in short aims to:
-Monitor the flow of all Nuclear based materials so that the illegal trade of them in the Black Market is reduced and eliminated.
- Have that within five years of this Act’s implementation, all production of Nuclear based materials be less than 10% of the current level.
-Have that within five years of this Act’s implementation, all actively used and stored Nuclear based material for the military, private and public sectors be less than 20% of current levels.

This act respects Member State’s right to posses a Nuclear deterrent in a hostile world were only a 1/3 of the NS world is within the embrace of the UN.
It respects the reliance of more advanced Member States on Nuclear based materials in their many sectors.
It respects that a gradual curbing of Nuclear Proliferation is wanted by all civilised Nations, but to ban all Nuclear based materials would mean the collapse of many economies, militaries and infrastructure in many Nations, from invasion or internal collapse.
It respects that any attempt to make the World a better place for future generations must be done practically and gradually.

*Ends*

You want a 20% drop in production in one calendar year and an 90% reduction in the next 5 years?

Additionally, you want an 80% reduction of use on the next year?

Are you out of your mind to think that this will pass any better than complete proliferation when I am getting a split vote on a 30% reduction in numbers over the next decade?

Well any advice?
The point of it is an immediate climbdown but with a small level still useable but highly rapid in de-escalating the world.

The thing is, banning the weapons entirely would be completely fine by me, because they are ridiculous and horrible. But the fact is that nuclear energt could be a very effecient power source. You see, since at the moment MAD will still work pretty well, and the environment is being quickly degraded, I would rather see increased nuclear energy and decreased weapons, but I don't see how that will work. A better inspection system perhaps? I think that countries should be forced to destroy their weapons, keep meticulous records of their nuclear energy, and take a census every five years ago to see if the tax dollars properly correlate with the production of energy within the nation.

This act, put together from the sensible opposition points that were raised against the End Nuclear Proliferation Act, wishes to gradually curb the production and creation of Nuclear based weapons, power sources and materials in general.

Let's give it a go...

This proposal does not wish to ban Nuclear materials in the military, public or private sector within a Nation, only to curb there production and regulate the industry.
"...their production..."

This act will cover primly:
"...cover primarily"? (Or "...primarily cover"?)
- Nuclear based materials used in Warfare, namely Nuclear based warheads and Depleted Uranium.
Apart from hyphenating and de-capitalising "nuclear-based" (I seem to be be getting hung up on such issues) I think public opinion has it that depleted uranium should be dealt with /separately/ under a scheme for restricting toxic metals. Certainly blatent inclusion as a radioactive material could split the vote on this issue.
- Nuclear based power sources, for standard power plants to the advanced nations who use Nuclear based drives in their industry and ships.
- All basic forms and components of Nuclear material, the unregulated black market in which these materials can be picked up and used to create Nuclear based bombs.
You're trying to govern the black market? Nice try, but first let's get all criminals to register their illegal handguns.

The production goal will be:
-To limit any production of Nuclear materials, for either a power source, military use or any other, to 80% of current levels in individual Nations effective immediately after the passing of this Act.
How immediately? Instantaneously? And it might not be possible if there is no (or little) military production of radiological materials, with (say) just medical production and waste-reprocessing in the line for cutbacks (and the waste itself will continue to be generated at the same rate). It depends on circumstances.
-That within one year, levels of production of Nuclear based materials be less than 75% of the level of production at the time the Act was passed.
- That within three years, levels of production of Nuclear based materials be less than 40% of the level of production at the time the Act was passed.
- That within five years, levels of production of Nuclear based materials be less than 10% of the level of production at the time the Act was passed.
Not as unreasonable, but five years is a short time in the nuclear industry.

The active use goal will be:
- That within one year, levels of active Nuclear based materials used in the military, private and public sector within a nation be less than 80% of the level of those used at the time the Act was passed.
- That within three years, levels of active Nuclear based materials used in the military, private and public sector within a nation be less than 60% of the level of those used at the time the Act was passed.
- That within five years, levels of active Nuclear based materials used in the military, private and public sector within a nation be less than 20% of the level of those used at the time the Act was passed.
No provision for space-tech nations' nuclear requirements, apart from anything else...

This Act also requires a UN regulatory body to be set up to monitor both the efforts of Nations in reaching these goals, but more importantly, to monitor all Nuclear material within the member Nations, so that accurate records of the location, use and quantity of them is recorded so that they may not leak into the Black Market during our time of de-escalation of Nuclear materials.
Sounds reasonable (see other variants on the redesigned resolution, specifically UNRAP). Can there be more details about your provision for secure storage of spent/surplus material taken out of the Active Use category?
Also, if your agency monitors nuclear technology being shipped to some rogue nation, is it going to have the power to stop this, or is it just going to note the fact?


This Act in short aims to:
-Monitor the flow of all Nuclear based materials so that the illegal trade of them in the Black Market is reduced and eliminated.
Existing black-market materials? 'Laundered' through 3rd parties? I could ship my 'waste' off to some non-UN foreign power ahead of the resolution (might have done so already) and... well, there are loads of possible scenarios...
- Have that within five years of this Act’s implementation, all production of Nuclear based materials be less than 10% of the current level.
-Have that within five years of this Act’s implementation, all actively used and stored Nuclear based material for the military, private and public sectors be less than 20% of current levels.

This act respects Member State’s right to posses a Nuclear deterrent in a hostile world were only a 1/3 of the NS world is within the embrace of the UN.
It respects the reliance of more advanced Member States on Nuclear based materials in their many sectors.
No it doesn't. Whether you're a country whose entire economy is based upon the nuclear industry or you're just producing nuclear weapons hand-over-fist because 'you can' you get hit by the same quotas.
It respects that a gradual curbing of Nuclear Proliferation is wanted by all civilised Nations, but to ban all Nuclear based materials would mean the collapse of many economies, militaries and infrastructure in many Nations, from invasion or internal collapse.
It respects that any attempt to make the World a better place for future generations must be done practically and gradually.
I have reservations about the wording, as you can see, but certainly that is what this resolution intends, I'll give you that.

Hmmm...ok, a few good points. To deal with them one at a time.

The spelling errors, fair enough, they've been noted on another forum and corrected. Dyslexic eh=)

-Depleted Uranium causes very similar long term aftereffects in areas it was been used (shelled, bombed etc) , this mutates crops, vastly increases case of cancer, sterilizes what tend to be the maj. of any local inhabitants over a perios of a few years and puts pisscarages through the roof. So I consider it under the Nuclear Proliferation controls, it's initial effect might be less(standard bomb) but it's mid to long term effects are devistating.

-No, I'm trying to slow down Govt fuelling of the black market. I wouldn't be navie enough to assume to be able to have any control beyond regulating Govt's actions that contribute to it, so don't be as arragant to assume I think that.

-The Term 'Immediatly after...' or 'following forethwith...' are accepted as meaning within a period of 6-12 months.

-Then medical prodution and waste procescing would take priority over military and commercial needs then wouldn't it? Only realy bastardly Nations would put thier military above the others eh? Guess it depends on the UN member states outlook in how they approach that one mate.

-True, that's why this is not meant to be and industry suiting act but a practicale de-escelation pice of legislation effective immidiatly allowing the time needed to saftly and quickly disarm and cease the maj. of production.

-Certain levels are allowed, enough for a good level of power if the proportion of nuclear material used is shifted from the military to power (ship/plant/etc)

-The UN regulatory body would be defined in it's goals and power in an Act speacificaly for them and extending the detail on this one. Currently it would just be taking stock and monitering untill the further act is brought in after this one.

-Good point, a re-draft banning UN member states from importing or exporting Nuclear Materials thorugh non-UN states should be added so that we cut out the primary black market interest in nuclear material in UN member states. OOC: And don't be so fucking flame baiting, no shit you could do that, I could hide mine's in the mountains and for all we know Germanys hiding Nukes in Poland. If we think up possible ways round it, we will find them, but it's just taking it too far.

-If your entire countrys based round nuclear industry, space age or not, it's a bloody stupid country. Who would have the ultimate reliance on Nuclear technology in a state? Apart from the seriosue health and envoromental disasters because of the immence waste produced and the eventual decline of the State becasue of it (effecting health-lifestlye-economy-industry-jobs-gnashing of teeth and Govt) Alternatives will just have to be reasonably made up for the role playing adv nations, hell they'res alternatives now so I'm sure they can think of something bigger and workable and not just reliy on the common no-thinker 'Nuke-in-everything' idea, these guys got enough imagination to do the space age hing so they got enough imagination to applie it to themselves dont you think?

Hmmm...ok, a few good points. To deal with them one at a time.

OOC: Yeah sorry. I got carried away. I also did not "write item, go away, come back, re-read article, re-write article, repeat as required, then post" as I usually like to do, to avoid any unpleasant "well I mean this, but it reads as that" incidents. Anyway, missing some of the responses to the more ridiculous comments of mine...


Speeling Eroors: No problem. I was trying to give guidence, not ridicule. Despite (or because of? :) ) your country name I wasn't even sure if you were a native English speaker, but I didn't write things as sensitively as I thought I had.


DU: I mention it as a mechanism that might split the vote. I've seen evidence from opposite and equal experts about how much it affects things, and not enough nouse to work out who is more severely distorting the figures.


'Immediatly after...' or 'following forethwith...': I was not aware of the official meaning as 6-12 months. My ignorance, now I do. Thanks.


Priorities: Meant a country where morally justifiable use of radiological material prevaled (i.e. little or no military use). You're giving leeway for a nation to decide where the cuts occur by lumping it all into one (allowing RP as aggressive nation or otherwise) but this could cause problems for nations already acting 'nicely' where cuts must be absorbed by non-military and legitimate programmes. (This also affects "material [...] from the military to power" response.) Just for your consideration.


Similarly, in a following point, I was meaning space-based (not just space-age) nations that conceivably don't use singularity-powered/other-ubertech systems (which could be considered pretty dangerous, but at least the former eat up unwanted radioactive material) that might be significantely/solely reliant upon the nucleat industry, that's all... No examples given (this, again, is RP territory).


Enough of that. I think I had enough time on my hands to waffle on, yet not enough to ensure my comments were fully explained, yesterday. I hope this message doesn't have the same (wrongly perceived) animosity about it. Take on board what you will, leave what you won't.

Actually, hate to burst your bubble, but you might want to check this (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=77286) out, specifically, this bit:

7. Repeals and Amendments
This is mentioned in the Game Mechanics section, but since people keep doing it I'm making it more emphasised - you may NOT submit proposals that seek to repeal or amend earlier resolutions.

** Lydia stands up, gathers the notes she made on previous discussions, and begins…”**

Again, the government of Telidia reaffirms its commitment to the reduction of nuclear arms around the world and supports the efforts of the honourable member from The Peoples of Scotland to address to this complicated problem.

However, having read the proposal I am concerned that nuclear power sources are thrown together with nuclear weapons and also leave the whole issue of biological and chemical weapons out of scope. It is very feasible that nations might use nuclear energy as part of a coherent energy process, whilst not having any nuclear weapons.

We feel that issues of energy and arms should be kept completely separate since these two topics have vastly different issues. For example, during the Telidian National Energy conference, most internal agencies agree that nuclear energy must form part of a coherent strategy and agree that in the absence of other energy sources an escalation is needed rather than a reduction.

Unfortunately as our energy demands grow we have had to review the balance between our aging fossil power plants, nuclear energy and renewable sources. Unfortunately a renewable source, which is our preferred method, is not consistent and at the rate we are collectively polluting the planet’s atmosphere with green house gases, drastic measures are called for.

Most scientist now agree that to fill the gap nuclear energy is the only viable option being the lesser of the two evils and will at least provide time to develop better and more efficient renewable sources. If other nations have come to the same conclusions as us, it is therefore quite feasible that some nations may relay almost completely on nuclear energy.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

This isn't new, it reads like SSDD to me.

Thank you for the comments so far, and I thankful accept E B Guvegrra's re-stated points.


Having looked at other similar responces to this proposition I intend to edit it considerably, so that the focus will only deal with Nuclear materials in a military capacity.

Thank you for all your comments, an ammemded version of the amended version will be avalible for debate soon.

:wink: I await your criticisms with glee...

Thank you for the comments so far, and I thankful accept E B Guvegrra's re-stated points.


Having looked at other similar responces to this proposition I intend to edit it considerably, so that the focus will only deal with Nuclear materials in a military capacity.

Thank you for all your comments, an ammemded version of the amended version will be avalible for debate soon.

:wink: I await your criticisms with glee...

I would suggest you also look at the thread regarding UNRAP which is a very similar proposal to yours.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=153707

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia