NationStates Jolt Archive

Fellow members,

For some time now the continuing discussion on the usage of DU and it's associated health impacts have been long argued over.

The fact of the matter is that the health impacts have thus far not been proven amongst the established scientific community. It is therefore difficult to back up the assertions of certain member states.

On the other hand, the questions raised by the fringe of the scientific community prove too compelling to completely ignore out of hand.

It is the opinion of this member state that while the UN should not be moved to brash and hasty action on the words of a few scaremongers outside of the scientific consensus, the UN could and should take efforts to ensure the safety of the civilian population. At the same time, efforts must be made to establish the answer to the issue of the safety of DU.

The DSH invites member states to express their opinions on this matter. We have completed a draft proposal which we welcome feedback on. Please note that this proposal is never intended to ban DU, but rather seek to establish answers on it's health impact, and also encourage a responsible use of DU.

Observing the possible health concerns in the usage of Depleted Uranium, and deeply uneasy about the possible health threats to civilians;

Conscious of the military and civilian applications and benefits they provide, most notably the tremendous advantage DU provides against armour.

Troubled by the lack of scientific consensus on the safety of DU;

Disturbed by excessive scaremongering within the scientific community,

Concerned and mindful of the threat posed by rouge nations outside the UN;

Resolves the following:

Encourages a responsible usage of DU in all its applications in line with the “rules of war”, including implementing clean-up operations of areas of DU usage in conflict;

Determined to establish a scientific consensus towards establishing the safety of DU and similar materials, and establish a practical alternative;

Recommends nations implement safety measures to protect the health of military personnel, including education of personnel and proper storage of DU, and the health of production workers;

Urges the scientific community in all member states to work co-operatively towards these aims;

Compels member states and their military to co-operate in these aims;

Suggests that member states and the scientific community scrutinise future conflict zones using DU to enhance understanding of the effects associated;

...

Calm ? Restraint ? Options ? Objective ? Rational ?

...

Present.

* Supports, resolves to observe future motions of proposition.

Just "encourage" nations to clean-up the messes?
Just "recommend" safety measures to be implemented?
Just "urge" and "compel" cooperation?

This proposal, as it is written, will accomplish nothing.

Also, you have a typo. "Rouge" should become "rogue". (Unless you are referring to nations that paint their cheeks or face red, hehe.)

Though we agree with the intent of the proposal, Tihland cannot support a proposal that, in the end, does nothing for anyone.

It would be appreciated if the references to "DU" were changed to "Depleted Uranium" so as not to be confused with "Democratic Underground", the region which I am a member of and used to be the Delegate of. I understand if this is impossible due to space considerations, but I do not think it is.

Michael Evif
PCC|DU-Delegate, LoNS Convention (http://ns.goobergunch.net/)
Former Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Former Democratic Underground Regional Delegate

This seems perfectly sensible as a proposal. You have my support.

One recommendation: I would suggest that the text also encourage us to act appropriately once the scientific community has reached a general consensus. I don't think anything that important should be left as implicit.

Just "encourage" nations to clean-up the messes?
Just "recommend" safety measures to be implemented?
Just "urge" and "compel" cooperation?

This proposal, as it is written, will accomplish nothing.

1. I'd argue It has a much better chance of being accepted than your proposals. It acts as a strong effort to ensure the safety of industrial workers, military personnel and civilian populations.
It doesn't ban DU outright because there is no strong compelling evidence to do so, which is what other proposals (including yours) have been seeking. This proposal will probably be more welcome to the nations which have rejected your proposal out of hand because of their overprohibitive measures and reactionary regulation in response to a scaremongering scientific minority outside the consensus.

2. If you knew anything about the RL UN, you'd know they tend to crouch their proposals in such language. Just because someone says encourage, does not mean there is a lack of diplomatic weight behind it. The UN can do a lot of encouragement, especially with the amount of power it has....Besides, Just because the UN can be much harsher does not mean it has to. A little politeness never hurt anyone. ;)

Also, you have a typo. "Rouge" should become "rogue". (Unless you are referring to nations that paint their cheeks or face red, hehe.)

Thanks for the observation. Correction will be made in the eventually submitted article.

Goobergunchia: I'll try and make the change you suggested, but if it does not fit in due to space limitations, I'll have to put it back to DU :)

_Myopia_: I'll consider appropiate phrasing to include regarding your suggestion, but wholly agree with the observation.

I believe in doing things outright. Just suggesting and encouraging leaves room for nations to just ignore the whole thing. This isn't RL UN. You can still ban something and be polite.

My second draft of the DU proposal doesn't completely ban DU! Are you people not reading it or something?

Tihland cannot approve a waste of space and time! Tihland believes in effeciency!

I'll not tell you then what still I consider to be the chances of your proposal being resolved by a general / open vote then ... Because one of the big things this proposal has going for it is it does not put member nations up against the wall and do what they will consider to be naughty things to them.

indeed! NS UN might have the power to do everything and nations can't ignore what it decides, but that's no excuse to be impolite! After all, diplomacy is the art of sounding polite ;)

My key chain tells it all :

DIPLOMACY
The ability to tell a person to go to hell in such a way that he looks forward to the trip.

indeed! NS UN might have the power to do everything and nations can't ignore what it decides, but that's no excuse to be impolite! After all, diplomacy is the art of sounding polite ;)Indeed. What you have here is a moderate proposal with appropriate goals - and in line with recent rulings on applicability of RL conditions and trends to NS. Well done. You have my support.

By the way, Tihland: Compels gives the UN enforcement authority. Per m-w.com (http://m-w.com):

1 : to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly
2 : to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure
3 archaic : to drive together
synonym see FORCE

Depleted Uranium, by military expert yours truly.

What's Depleted Uranium?

Depleted Uranium is left after enriched uranium is separated from natural uranium in order to produce fuel for nuclear reactors. During this process, the fissionable isotope Uranium 235 is separated from uranium. The remaining uranium, which is 99.8% uranium 238 is called depleted uranium.

Depleted uranium is an extremely dense, hard metal. It can cause chemical poisoning to the body in the same way as can lead or any other heavy metal.

What is Depleted uranium used for?

Depleted uranium is particularly used by American M1A2 Abrams tanks in the munition type known as APFSDS-T (Armour Piercin Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot - Tracer). APFSDS-T is basically a rod of a heavy metal, somewhat resembling a pencil, wich is shot at high velocity. The thin heavy and fastmoving rod uses kinetic energy to penetrate the enemy armour. While doing so it creates a wave of heat, overpressure and shrapnel (consisting of the shattered rod itself and the armour it took with him) inside the tank.

Why Depleted Uranium?

The rod is most effective when using a material as hard and heavy as possible. The German/Dutch Leopard 2A6 uses APFSDS-T munition as well, but with tungsten rods. Depleted uranium however, is even denser and thus slightly more effective.

Health risks?

Depleted uranium is radioactive. When depleted uranium impacts, it shatters after penetration. This sends dust clouds into the atmosphere. It has not been proven that this is a health risk. The dust cloud spreads out over a large area, and radiation is hardly above natural levels. Because that's what most people forget: EVERYTHING is radioactive.

Conclusion:

The proven advantages of the usage of depleted uranium far outweigh any possible health risks. The production of depleted uranium is safe. Depleted uranium should be available for usage until something more effective is invented.

Yeah... I would support this. :)

Hilversum Grandeur: Thank you for compiling that information, which I recall has been posted elsewhere. It would be helpful if you could briefly reference your sources, so that skeptics can reassure themselves of their credibility.

My source is military education. I could search the internet for something similar though.

all the details on the ammo:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m829a1.htm

What I would say:
Please take out the garbage.
After person takes out garbage, I would say:
Thank you.

What you would say:
I encourage you to take out the garbage.
After person takes out garbage, if they feel "compelled" enough to, you would say:
Good job!

I say: I encourage you to take out the garbage.
You say: Naaah.
I say: I can compel you to do so, if I have to.
You say: Riiiight.
I pull out a baseball bat, point to the garbage and say: I really strongly encourage you, capiche?
You take out the garbage.
I say: Well done.

Whittier reserves the right to use depleted uranium rounds.

Whittier reserves the right to use depleted uranium rounds.You still can. The proposal just calls for you to clean up after yourself when the fighting's over. It's mainly about studying the issue, and taking some reasonable precautions in the meantime.

I say: I encourage you to take out the garbage.
You say: Naaah.
I say: I can compel you to do so, if I have to.
You say: Riiiight.
I pull out a baseball bat, point to the garbage and say: I really strongly encourage you, capiche?
You take out the garbage.
I say: Well done.
So basically, if I really want nations to stop using DU military stuff, I should threaten to nuke the living daylights out of them unless they stop?

So basically, I can control the whole world by threatening to use nukes with nations that don't do what I want them to do?

If you're going to compel someone to do something in this resolution, you need to mention how they're going to be compelled.

Here is my suggestion:
"If a nation does not follow the encouragement of this resolution, the U.N. will use nuclear weapons to blast the living daylights out of that nation."

You will almost get my approval if you put that in there.

Tihland, have you been listening?

The proposal calls for precautions in the production and storage of DU materiel and environmental cleanup after use. It is NOT a ban. It WILL NOT be a ban until and unless ongoing research - which this proposal mandates - finds suitable alternatives and/or develops a body of research to discredit the already prevailing findings that DU is not siginificantly more hazardous than other heavy metals such as lead or tungsten.

Your continuing to rail at us is not going to change the existing research findings, but if it makes you feel better, go right ahead.

"If a nation does not follow the encouragement of this resolution, the U.N. will use nuclear weapons to blast the living daylights out of that nation."

Where are you getting the idea that I think this is a ban?
If the U.N. is going to "COMPEL" a nation to do something, the resolution needs to specify how it's going to "COMPEL" us to do something (or "force" us to do something as mentioned earlier). What if a nation doesn't follow the "compellation" of this resolution? What are the consequences?

I need answers, not these unfounded accusations.

Not unfounded; your example was about making people stop using the stuff entirely. If that's not what you meant, choose your examples with a little more care.

Leaving the nature of the compulsion open-ended is appropriate; it lets the UN respond in a manner proportionate to the offense rather than a one-size-fits-all, which usually fits almost no one. That's why judges have broad discretion in sentencing.

Sorry about the examples. I guess I was just trying to say that it is better to ban things politely than to encourage things to be done.

Let's go back your example.
(1) I say: I encourage you to take out the garbage.
(2) You say: Naaah.
(3) I say: I can compel you to do so, if I have to.
(4) You say: Riiiight.
(5) I pull out a baseball bat, point to the garbage and say: I really strongly encourage you, capiche?
(6) You take out the garbage.
(7) I say: Well done.

Around line 6, since taking out the garbage isn't required and you've threatened me with a baseball bat, I decide to pull out a pair of baseball bats if I really don't want to take out the garbage. And the whole line of reasoning just falls apart after that. There's a big giant fight with more and bigger baseball bats while the garbage just idly sits there.

Around line 6, since taking out the garbage isn't required and you've threatened me with a baseball bat, I decide to pull out a pair of baseball bats if I really don't want to take out the garbage. And the whole line of reasoning just falls apart after that. There's a big giant fight with more and bigger baseball bats while the garbage just idly sits there.
Maybe, but chances are the risk of getting your arm or head broken will outweigh the inconvenience of getting up to take out the garbage. Everything comes down to cost-benefit analysis at one level or another, no?

Everything comes down to cost-benefit analysis at one level or another, no?
Unfortunately, some people do not think like that. If they really don't want to take out the garbage, they'll either threaten you with bigger baseball bats. Or, if they're the passive aggresive type, they'll take out the garbage--on you! LOL! Now that's a mess to clean up. Either that or they'll come back and beat you with the baseball bat after they take out the garbage. Ah, the possibilities are endless--just to be able not to take out the garbage...

The second draft of this proposal has been drawn up, recognising the input and observations from Tihland, Goobergunchia and _Myopia_, and the notably staunch support from Komokom, Hilversum Grandeur and Jovianica.

My government will shortly be submitting this proposal, and will be contacting the delegates of various regions seeking support on this matter.

Further positive input on this proposal is warmly welcome

Usage of Depleted Uranium

Observing the possible health concerns in the usage of Depleted Uranium, and deeply uneasy about the possible health threats to civilians;

Conscious of the military and civilian applications and benefits they provide, most notably the tremendous advantage Depleted Uranium provides against armour.

Troubled by the lack of scientific consensus on the safety of Depleted Uranium;

Disturbed by excessive scaremongering within the scientific community,

Concerned and mindful of the threat posed by rogue nations outside the UN;

Resolves the following:

Encourages a responsible usage of Depleted Uranium in all its applications in line with the “rules of war”, including implementing clean-up operations of areas of Depleted Uranium usage in conflict;

Determined to establish a scientific consensus towards establishing the safety of Depleted Uranium and similar materials, and establish a practical alternative;

Recommends nations implement safety measures to protect the health of military personnel, including education of personnel and proper storage of Depleted Uranium, and the health of production workers;

Urges the scientific community in all member states to work co-operatively towards these aims;

Compels member states and their military to actively co-operate in these aims;

Suggests that member states and the scientific community scrutinise future conflict zones using Depleted Uranium to enhance understanding of the effects associated;

Recommends the UN legislates further on this matter when the established scientific community establishes a consensus on the safety of Depleted Uranium and similar materials;

So basically, if I really want nations to stop using DU military stuff, I should threaten to nuke the living daylights out of them unless they stop?

So basically, I can control the whole world by threatening to use nukes with nations that don't do what I want them to do?

If you're going to compel someone to do something in this resolution, you need to mention how they're going to be compelled.

Here is my suggestion:
"If a nation does not follow the encouragement of this resolution, the U.N. will use nuclear weapons to blast the living daylights out of that nation."

You will almost get my approval if you put that in there.Of course, that would pretty much fuck your own " n00kz R BaaaD ! " proposal over quite well, non ? :D

The second draft of this proposal has been drawn up, recognising the input and observations from Tihland, Goobergunchia and _Myopia_, and the notably staunch support from Komokom, Hilversum Grandeur and Jovianica.

My government will shortly be submitting this proposal, and will be contacting the delegates of various regions seeking support on this matter.

Further positive input on this proposal is warmly welcome

Usage of Depleted Uranium

Observing the possible health concerns in the usage of Depleted Uranium, and deeply uneasy about the possible health threats to civilians;

Conscious of the military and civilian applications and benefits they provide, most notably the tremendous advantage Depleted Uranium provides against armour.

Troubled by the lack of scientific consensus on the safety of Depleted Uranium;

Disturbed by excessive scaremongering within the scientific community,

Concerned and mindful of the threat posed by rogue nations outside the UN;

Resolves the following:

Encourages a responsible usage of Depleted Uranium in all its applications in line with the “rules of war”, including implementing clean-up operations of areas of Depleted Uranium usage in conflict;

Determined to establish a scientific consensus towards establishing the safety of Depleted Uranium and similar materials, and establish a practical alternative;

Recommends nations implement safety measures to protect the health of military personnel, including education of personnel and proper storage of Depleted Uranium, and the health of production workers;

Urges the scientific community in all member states to work co-operatively towards these aims;

Compels member states and their military to actively co-operate in these aims;

Suggests that member states and the scientific community scrutinise future conflict zones using Depleted Uranium to enhance understanding of the effects associated;

Recommends the UN legislates further on this matter when the established scientific community establishes a consensus on the safety of Depleted Uranium and similar materials;

This is good - I'd say it's at a submittable stage.

Being non-English, I would like to hear a definition of 'consensus' to avoid any misunderstanding from my side.

It looks good like this however.

I feel a resolution that strongly encourages is preferable to a resolution that just orders.

Being non-English, I would like to hear a definition of 'consensus' to avoid any misunderstanding from my side.
Main Entry: con·sen·sus
Pronunciation: k&n-'sen(t)-s&s
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Latin, from consentire
1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports... from the border -- John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>
2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief
usage The phrase consensus of opinion, which is not actually redundant (see sense 1a; the sense that takes the phrase is slightly older), has been so often claimed to be a redundancy that many writers avoid it. You are safe in using consensus alone when it is clear you mean consensus of opinion, and most writers in fact do so.

(credit: m-w.com)

I still have problems with it. If there are going to be consequences for not following this resolution (since it mostly encourages), you should state that there are going to be negative consequences for those that don't follow it. Of course, the non-followers would probably argue that the resolution only encourages. Sigh...this is so ridiculously complicated.

A resolution that gives orders is a whole lot easier to enforce than one that just encourages. There are so many open-ended problems that arise from simple encouragements compared to bans.

TrES-1, "n00kz" are not yet outlawed, and like any country with a will to defend itself against nations that do have them, Tihland has them as well. However, Tihland would most assuredly get rid of them upon a complete and outright ban. (We would not feel protected enough upon an "encouragement" to get rid of our "n00kz.")

this is something that i do not believe many nations are ready to present, but perhaps the cloneing nations would be willing, if properly funded to use thier products to further research the effects of DU and thus negate the problem of ignorence. for ignorence does nothing but provide inacurate legislation.

this is something that i do not believe many nations are ready to present, but perhaps the cloneing nations would be willing, if properly funded to use thier products to further research the effects of DU and thus negate the problem of ignorence. for ignorence does nothing but provide inacurate legislation.

I'm sorry Tri-cal, I don't see your point.