NationStates Jolt Archive

Tsunami Warning System

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Grosseschnauzer

Description:

The NationStates United Nations,


DEEPLY REGRETTING the scale of the loss of life and property due to tsunamis;

AWARE that the some of causes of tsunamis include earthquakes, volcanic activity, landslides, and celestial impacts, but that the primary danger associated with a tsunami is related to the displacement of water (i.e. waves);

NOTING that these disasters can impact multiple nations at the same time;

EMPHASIZING that the citizens from non-coastal communities may be at risk while on vacation or business in coastal communities;

CONVINCED that by pooling resources to detect potential tsunamis, issuing warnings to the areas likely to be impacted, coordinating international aid efforts, and sharing research related to tsunamis, that nations can better prepare for these disasters;

1. ESTABLISHES a United Nations sponsored and funded Tsunami Emergency Warning Center (TEWC), to be staffed by a team of technical experts who can collect and monitor seismic and stage data in order to study the physics related to tsunamis in different locations, identify possible threats to populated areas, and issue warnings in the event of such a threat;

2. REQUESTS member nations to forward seismic data already being collected to the TEWC to aid in its research and monitoring program;

3. SUGGESTS that governments that do not have seismic networks work with the TEWC and other nations in order to enhance existing seismic monitoring and planetary and oceanography programs (which can be considered linked to police and emergency response budgets for the purposes of NationStates);

4. AUTHORIZES the TEWC to establish a network of land-based and deep ocean buoys and sensors to monitor changes in the water surface across the network, in order to confirm possible tsunamis created by earthquakes or volcanic activity as well as to observe and identify tsunamis created by other physical processes that are undetected by seismic waves (such as landslides or large scale impacts);

5. DIRECTS the TEWC to develop a standardized tsunami warning protocol that can be used in member nations that can be easily recognized by citizens and travelers;

6. MANDATES that the TEWC transmit advisory warnings to member nations based on its timely analysis of data collected by both the seismic and water surface monitoring programs;

7. CALLS UPON member nations to provide the TEWC with emergency contact centers that can quickly respond to tsunami warnings issued by the TEWC;

8. REITERATES the need for member nations to develop evacuation and response plans in the event of a tsunami warning by ensuring that adequate emergency response teams and equipment is available to deal with the likely damages associated with a tsunami appropriate for that nation;

9. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that in the event of a tsunami disaster that nations will continue to offer humanitarian assistance to affected nations; and

10. ASKS that member nations work with the International Red Cross Organization to coordinate international tsunami relief efforts.


Based upon an original proposal by Tejasdom, with subsequent contributions by Mikitivity, Grosseschnauzer, and Groot Gouda.

Voting Ends: Thu Jan 27 2005

Frequently asked questions concerning the Tsunami Warning System resolution:

Q: Is a global system even necessary? It sounds like spending a lot of money for something that is rare.

Tsunamis are not rare; but a tsunami event that damages widespread coastal areas seem to have occurred several times a century, in different oceans of the world. Some tsunamis can affect areas located over thousands of kilometers and cause historic levels of death, injuries, and property damage. Various seismic and tectonic events, such as earthquakes (measured at Ritcher scale 7.5 and above) occuring underwater, or volcanic eruptions that cause certain large scale water displacement in oceans, or the impact of sufficiently sized objects from space into a ocean, can trigger tsunamis. The cost of lives lost and disrupted, the cost of property damages, and the longer term economic impact is far greater than the costs associated with a global warning system.

Q: How much of the world’s oceans would have to be covered to make this a complete system?

That determination is a technical one, that should be determined by technical experts, but we would expect virtually all of the world’s oceans can be covered.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2365.htm

Q: What about other planets?

Since this is being proposed as a NationStates United Nations project, there is no reason that this project be limited to just the "Earth". However, the decision on what coasts are a priority to begin monitoring first is a decision best left to technical experts and not diplomats.

Q: Can this really work?

Yes. An existing system has been in place for the past forty years, and has been used to notify citizens and visitors to potentially threatened coastlines of potential tsunami events, and provide time for evacuations and other preventive measures.

Q: Why police and military budgets (aka International Security)?

Under the guidelines in use, the proposal involves some expenditures to increase the level of protection to the population of each country, which in general terms is a police function.

Q: How much would this cost?

The intention of the sponsoring group of nations is to leave the technical planning to the technical experts. We’re satisfied, however, that the overall cost of installation of a global bouy and sensor network, the land based sensors, the satellite and radio recivers and transmitters, and the staffing of a Tsunami Early Warning Center would not leave any nation with a coastline subject to a risk of a tsunami exposure without monitoring being available. This is based upon cost information of the elements of such systems already in place. See:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...m/quake_bush_dc
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ke_bush_plan_dc

The following story was published online on January 24, 2005, and provides other details of costs for expansion of the RL system:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=3&u=/nm/20050124/pl_nm/quake_usa_dc

There are animations at this link that shows how a major tsunami event can be observed worldwide. The number and location of the new sensors and bouys will be determined by the technical experts.

Q: Why does this resolution focus only on preventing loses associated with tsunamis when we know that we can predict other natural disasters as well?

Actually the authors of this resolution have also started work on a second proposal that would focus on other predictable natural disasters including things like hurricanes and floods. It was agreed by the sponsors of this resolution that there would not be enough room to include technical details appropriate for all of these natural disasters in a single resolution, but we felt it important to illustrate a degree of technical "direction" when creating this first resolution in order to lend credibility to the concept. Naturally our nations are committeed to fostering international disaster prevention and assistance, and would greatly appreciate any help in promoting similar UN activites that is offered.

Q: Why the reference to the International Red Cross Organization?

The International Red Cross Organization was created by NationStates United Nations resolution 29, and was designed to be the primary organization responsible for coordinating international disaster relief efforts. Though our resolution is creating a new organization to monitor and issue tsunami warnings, we did not want to take the IRCO away from its primary task, which is responding to actual disasters. It is our sincere hope that we can prevent disasters before the IRCO is needed, though our nations remain equally committeed to humanitarian aid.

The thread that contains the discussions of the earlier drafts and links to information to develop the final resolution:

Earlier discussion thread for Tsunami Warning System resolution in draft form. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=384904)

As a nation of shipbuilders located in the South Pacific, The Free Land of Mariskale is particularly interested in this issue. While the cost may be difficult for us to bear, we feel that the cost in human life lost to a tsnuami would be much much worse. If your nation could save millions with only a little currency, it would seem to be the moral thing to do, would it not? We encourage all nations, regardless of location to support this resolution.

I also support this. Despite having not faced a tsunami yet, I do not wish to either. A little warning would definitely help.

Questions about Tsunamis in the Real-World

Please read through the following Real World FAQ and consider joining those of us that support this NationStates resolution. Though there are differences between the real world and NationStates, there are many things that are the same as well. A number of us are convinced that this is an appropriate “diplomatic” start for a very important topic.


Q: How frequent are real-life tsunamis?

This is a complicated question, in part, because historical tsunami records are not that long. A nice list of significant tsunamis was published by CNN on Dec. 27, 2004:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/12/26/tsunami.timeline.ap/index.html

Here is a quick summary of that article:

Dec 26, 2004 > Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand :: 200,000+ killed
Jul 17, 1998 > Papua-New Guinea :: 2,000 people killed
Aug 16, 1976 > Philippines :: 5,000 killed
Mar 28, 1964 > Alaska, Oregon, and California :: 124 killed
May 22 1960 > Chile, Hawaii, Japan, the Philippines :: thousands killed
Apr 1, 1946 > Alaska, Hawaii :: 164 killed
Jan 31, 1906 > Ecuador and Columbia :: 500 to 1,500 killed
Dec 17, 1896 > California :: property damage only
Aug 27, 1883 > Indonesia (Krakatoa) :: 36,000 killed
Nov 1, 1775 > Portugal, Spain, Morocco :: unknown
Jul 21, 365 > Egypt :: thousands killed

These are just the events from one survey, but are all considered significant. A google search will turn up many other references to other events. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami
http://www.mapsofworld.com/tsunami/largest-historical-tsunamis.html



Q: Is international cooperation for a warning system possible?

Yes. The United States has been a lead in establishing a tsunami warning system for the Pacific Ocean. A warning system needs several components: (1) a way to detect tsunamis, (2) a way to screen out false alarms and/or project at risk locations, (3) the ability to quickly contact local officials who can then, (4) warn those at risk. The idea behind international cooperation is to make all of these tasks easier by sharing information and standardizing warnings. Let’s work backwards on what we know:

(Step 4)
For example, in Europe or North America, drivers are all taught to pull to the side of the road when any emergency vehicle approaches. A common sense approach will help local law enforcement and emergency response groups protect and warn those at risk.

(Step 3)
In the Indian Ocean Tsunami, one of the chief complaints is that although Indonesia was hit very early, there was no international mechanism for Indonesia or Australia and the United States to quickly contact and warn Thailand, Sri Lanka, or India. A “hot-line” from an international center might make it easier for scientists to put local law enforcement and emergency services into action and quickly.

(Steps 1 & 2)
Scientists of course need data in order to detect and assess the real risk associated with tsunamis. Both historical information and real-time seismic and stage (tide) data are instrumental in detecting tsunamis. Real-time data is just what it sounds like … it is raw data that is transmitted from an environmental sensor straight to another location. A computer can read the data from multiple locations and detect anomalies at individual locations. This is how we first sound alarms. Scientists can then rule out false alarms.



Q: Is the real-life tsunami warning system 100% accurate?

No, of course note. Few things are. But NOAA does seem to think that the system has already saved money by actually functioning to rule out false warnings via its DART system.

http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag153.htm

The DART system currently has only a few buoys, but President Bush announced that the United States will increase the international system:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/14/quake.bush.reut/



Q: How much do these detection systems cost in the real world?

There are construction costs and operation costs. Both are measured in millions of dollars. That is actually extremely cheap compared to many other national or state level projects. (FYI: I work on a project that costs the State of California millions and it is just to study several thousand acres of sensitive farm land. $100 million is nothing to many industrial societies.)

Operational costs include needing to have a boat travel to and maintain the buoys, in addition to analyzing the data from them and seismic gauges.

The hidden costs are really tied up the communication systems, such as the satellites that pass the information from the buoys to the control centers and then other satellites that pass warnings to local law enforcement.



Q: How can you standardize warnings so that everybody understands them?

Well, you can’t be 100% effective, but it you can make an international sign that passes along common sense to travelers. The following is a link to a Wiki image, but we feel that the team of experts in this resolution could easily develop something suitable for the majority of societies in NationStates. Besides, when you travel in another country, you tend to have at least a crude idea of some of the signs of the country you are visiting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tsunsign.jpg



Q: Are land-locked nations impacted by tsunamis?

Actually, indirectly they are. In the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004, the number of Europeans that were killed was staggering. In the real-world the locations that are in danger often also are tourist spots. There are estimates of 52 confirmed Swedes that died (yes Sweden is a coastal nation too, but it is not normally subjected to tsunamis).

http://www.wboc.com/global/story.asp?s=2765539&ClientType=Printable

Just because your nation might not be directly impacted, your citizens may still be at risk. This is why countries like the United States, Germany, Japan, and the United Nations have been trying to build and fund warning systems in other regions of the world.

Here is just a list of nations involved in the Tsunami Warning Center for the Pacific:
http://www.geophys.washington.edu/tsunami/general/warning/iocmembers.html

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites fully supports this resolution.

From the Official UN Rules thread:
4. Real-Life Proposals
George W Bush, John Ashcroft, Tony Blair and so on don't exist here. Feel free to argue for or against their actions on the General forum, but don't try to get the UN to sanction or promote them.

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation, Thursday, October 14, 2004]You may not, under any circumstances, quote real-life studies or reports to bolster your arguments. First, NationStates is not real life, so studies of real-life do not necessarily apply. Second, this is easier (and faster) to enforce than allowing some real-life documents and prohibiting others; allowing some real-life documents, but not others, places an added analytical burden on our part we don't feel that this is worth any potential benefit. [/modedit]

I'm thinking this will work, but most nations might not be able to pay, and even if it is detected, it is probably already too late.
I'm not sure, of course, when it WOULD detect a tsunami, or even a possible tsunami, but I'm assuming it would be too late to evacuate everyone.
Because think about it, alot of people aren't just going to up and evacuate, even if you show them evidence, plus, it takes more time than you'd think to evacuate a major costal town, or even a little fishing village.

The nation of Maxinia is a coastal nation to a large body of water. The Public Democracy of Maxinia fully supports this notion and hopes that other nations will do the same.

Why is this resolution about boosting police and military budgets? We believe McGonagall would be able to provide the necessary funding from voluntary contibutions to these projects, our scientists would be willing to train local charity workers in the possible affected areas.

While this resolution is worthy, we cannot support any increase in police and military budgets. Military states may also note that expense of this type will affect your ambitions by diverting funds that could be used elsewhere into this project, which produces little prospect of military advantage.

We will follow this debate with full interest.

Why is this resolution about boosting police and military budgets? We believe McGonagall would be able to provide the necessary funding from voluntary contibutions to these projects, our scientists would be willing to train local charity workers in the possible affected areas.

While this resolution is worthy, we cannot support any increase in police and military budgets. Military states may also note that expense of this type will affect your ambitions by diverting funds that could be used elsewhere into this project, which produces little prospect of military advantage.

We will follow this debate with full interest.

I would say that not having hundreds of thousands of people killed by tidal waves would actually be quite a large military advantage.

From the Official UN Rules thread:
4. Real-Life Proposals
George W Bush, John Ashcroft, Tony Blair and so on don't exist here. Feel free to argue for or against their actions on the General forum, but don't try to get the UN to sanction or promote them.

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation, Thursday, October 14, 2004]You may not, under any circumstances, quote real-life studies or reports to bolster your arguments. First, NationStates is not real life, so studies of real-life do not necessarily apply. Second, this is easier (and faster) to enforce than allowing some real-life documents and prohibiting others; allowing some real-life documents, but not others, places an added analytical burden on our part we don't feel that this is worth any potential benefit. [/modedit]

So does that mean, to give scientific effidence, we can come up with a name and results in some research to back up our ideas on Nationstates?

If so, Robert McRobertson (Bob McBobson to his friends), who is quite possibly the greatest mind in the universe, says that he has come up with prove that can allow us to agree that the world/nationstates is better off without France and thus, should blow it up... ;)

EDIT: First post!

It is pointless.

The recent tsunami was a very rare sight. 9 on Richter's scale is very rare, and there is no reason that such thing would ever happen again.

OK, so assuming we've spotted a tsunami - what do we do? There isn't much we could do about it, really, because people are very unlikely to even listen to the UN's warnings. They may not want to listen to the warnings because either they make money out of tourism, and they don't want people to start a global scare or they don't believe the UN in general.

We should put more funding into things like disarming nuclear weapons - which are likely to cause a lot mare problems than a tsunami, not to mention that it's controllable unlike tsunamis.

And then the UN people will disarm their weapons, with non-UN people nuking the UN people.

Let's make this warning-system. It could also warn of hurricanes and stuff.

I've already voted FOR this resolution.

the chance of a tsunami happening is a bit larger then the chance of a nuclear war though. And what could be done? caostal regions could be evacuated long before the wave strikes and that would really limit the death toll.

Adamsgrad has not voted on this resolution yet, and will follow this debate with interest before we commit ourselves to voting for, or against.

I see no good reason not to support this resolution, other than that of cost.

From what I understand, funding for this system will come from UN-member states police and military budgets. With regard to the latter, this cannot be considered a bad thing.

However, my nation has some problems with crime, and with that in mind, are concerned about having to reduce our police budget to accomodate this system.

Please, put our minds at rest. :confused:

Even in coastal areas close to the epicenter of a deep ocean centered earthquake, education and a preparation system could save lives from a subsequent occurance of a tsunami.
In the recent tsunami, there were islands of populations in the Indian Ocean that were hit by the tsunami waves, fairly soon after the earthquake. The residents had an oral tradition that essentially taught them to move to higher ground as soon as they felt an earthquake. On that island, no lives were lost. (The name of the specific island wasn't mentioned in the report.....but there are island in the Indian Ocean that are part of India but part of the same island chain as Sumatra.) The point here is that that particular population ground had a plan, and followed that plan. It saved lives, and the fact that it was an indegious population, and based on an oral tradition does not affect the fact that a plan existed and saved lives.

The Borderlands of Njorge are voting against this resolution as we feel that this is not going to be an effective system in stopping the Rare but tragic force of a tsunami. Furthermore we do not have the capital to spare to pay for such a system, and we feel that It is against our nations interests to raise the military and police budget at the expense of the working man and possibly his civil liberties.

Even if one is detected they move at hundreds of miles an hour and It will take most likely close to days to get the relief forces mobilized.

Go ahead and pass this resolution like you have every other proposal, but Njorge is not going to pay a dime for this system.

The Fiefdom of Feight, would like to show its absolute abhorrance to the proposed system!!! it is wrong for those of us who aren't affected by this 'natual phenomenon' to pay for other peoples 'early warning' systems.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

The Fiefdom of Feight, would like to show its absolute abhorrance to the proposed system!!! it is wrong for those of us who aren't affected by this 'natual phenomenon' to pay for other peoples 'early warning' systems.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

1. That's probably flamebait.

2. Using more than one exclamation point itsn't going to get your point across any better.

This proposal is insane. There are a few facts that people are failing to account for. First, current tsunami warning systems give a max of 2 hour warnings. Second, many of the people who died in this recent tsunami would not have been aided by a warning system, and in fact some had a warning. Why not, you ask me? Because we are talking about places that are not compatiable with quick escape. This resolution provides no way to be able to evacuate millions of people within LESS THAN 2 HOURS!!! So, what will happen? Country gets warning, country goes wild with riots and marshall law, more people die. Next, you fail to consider that this will in no way improve the quality of homes and buildings to withstand a tsunami. Most of the millions of dollars being sent over to the tsunami ridden area is goin towards rebuilding buildings, that money will still need to be spent. I cannot allow my nation to be apart of this. What happens is far more people die, and many more dollars/marses/whatever ur currency is will have to be spent to no avail...let each nation decide to build one, and the UN can aid poor nations who cannot afford to build this system. The UN was not made to be imperialistic, it was made to help preserve peace, not force me to spend money on worthless and destructive things.

Grand Admiral General of all Mars Colonies

Well as there's already a system in place doesn't this resolution seem like quite a moot point? Let's take a look at the big picture too. If the water is coming, there's not a whole lot you can do about it. Granted you may be able to seek and find shelter, but if that shelter is not above the level where the wave will hit and flooding will occur, you're still screwed. If the nearest safe ground is ten minutes away, and the tsunami warning comes when the wave is five minutes out, then all this money is wasted. How soon exactly does the horn go off to indicate the wave's arrival? Loss of life is tragic, but an advanced tsunami system is not the answer to this problem. At this point, IU Sucks will not be voting for this resolution.

Yet another example of UN mommy-knows-best attempts to force the world into spending its money on what it thinks is best.

Landlocked countries don't care about this legislation, nor do nations whose coastlines are largely high cliffs. This resolution makes everyone pay for a benefit for the select few. And isn't low-lying beachfront property an economic advantage? Can't they pay for their own?

Cabinia is not a landlocked country, with extensive low-lying beachfront property lying along the Caribbean. Cabinia has also been sensible enough to translate that into extensive development for the navy and merchant marines. We already have a buoy network in place for a variety of reasons, and tidal monitoring/research is one. This is already budgeted for in our naval budget. We have no intention of abandoning our own projects, and we have absolutely no desire to fund what would effectively be a redundant system.

Simply by entering into regional agreements, the entire Caribbean could be covered by Cabinia's system. Similar systems exist around the world. This is a problem which is regional in scope, and should be handled at that level. UN involvement is wasteful and counter-productive. As usual.

This proposal is insane. There are a few facts that people are failing to account for. First, current tsunami warning systems give a max of 2 hour warnings. Second, many of the people who died in this recent tsunami would not have been aided by a warning system, and in fact some had a warning. Why not, you ask me? Because we are talking about places that are not compatiable with quick escape.

You've mentioned several things that really are untrue in the real world.

First, you've claimed that the current system (which we are talking about building a NationStates system) only gives a max of a 2 hour warning.

I've never read that anywhere, and I'd like you to provide a link to that.

Experts have constantly said that *had* the Indian Ocean had: (1) a warning system, and (2) institutional arrangements for the first hit nation, Indoesia, to contact Sri Lanka, India, and the Maldives, that lives could have been saved.

Don't believe me, the spend a bit of time reading the links we've already provided ... or look at some of these:

http://www.voanews.com/english/2004-12-28-voa5.cfm

Yet the giant waves surprised and killed people at all these distant locations. U.S. Geological Survey geophysicist Waverly Person told NBC television's "Today" show interviewers that is because the region lacks a system of water sensors that can warn of an impending tsunami.

"Had they had tide gauges installed, many of these people that were farther away from the epicenter could have been saved because they would have been able to track the waves and tell the people along the coast area to move off the beach and give them an approximate time the waves were going to hit. They couldn't tell them how high they were going to be, but at least they could say, 'This is the approximate time they will hit your area, so move away from the coasts,'" Mr. Person says.

Person works for the US Geological Survey, and I'd qualify as an expert on the field.


Where you claim the network takes two hours, Person claims 10 minutes:

Mr. Whitmore says the network can issue tsunami warnings within 10 minutes of an earthquake, much faster than the hour or more it took a decade ago.

Later the article added:

"The existing warning system can help those that are, say, 30, 40 minutes, an hour away from the tsunami. We can get messages to those people," Mr. Whitmore says. "But the majority of people who get killed in tsunamis are right near the coast, and our warnings may not reach those people quickly enough. So the best thing to do as far as saving lives is education of those near the coast to know that if they feel a strong earthquake, they need to get inland or to high ground and not wait for a warning."

This point is also addressed by the resolution in promoting the use of a common warning system at the domestic level.


For those of you arguing about costs ... ::sigh:: ... this has been covered before in the FAQs in this thread, but let's look at the real world again as an example:

UNESCO, which initiated the Pacific system in 1965, estimates that a regional system for the Indian Ocean will cost $30 million to set up. The system involves deep-water buoys, tidal gauges and a regional alert center.

source: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200501%5CFOR20050119b.html

The other thing to consider is that these warning systems save money and lives in eliminating false warnings as well:


Operating in the Pacific, the "Dart" (deep ocean assessment and reporting of tsunamis) buoy system has been credited not only with providing wave warnings, but also with helping to reduce false alarms. According to the NOAA, 75 percent of all warnings issued since 1948 were for non-destructive tsunamis.

For instance, in November 2003, Dart data showed that a tsunami heading for Hawaii would not cause damage, thus prompting the cancelation of a tsunami warning. As a result, an evacuation in Hawaii was averted, saving the state an estimated $68 million in lost productivity. (A similar "false alarm" tsunami in 1986 did lead to an evacuation in Honolulu, at a cost of $40 million.)


Also I'd like to remind people that we aren't just talking about sensors ... the costs associated with this resolution result in an increase in law enforcement and emergency planning budgets for domestic level protection.

Here is another article worth reading:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6839

A sensor network capable of detecting an oceanic earthquake and an impending tsunami in the Indian Ocean is feasible, say experts, but will be useless unless backed by improved communications infrastructure in the countries in greatest peril.

And it continues later on with ...

Officials from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii detected the seismic signal from the earthquake on 26 December but were unable to determine when or where a tsunami might strike. Only after hearing media reports that a tsunami had hit Sri Lanka were they able to alert Madagascar and the Mauritius Islands via the State Department in Washington, DC, US.

The point there is that although it is common sense that one country could warn another, institutional arrangements and standardizations via a central warning center might reduce the time it takes for one nation to notify another nation. Every minute clearly counts.

As for building codes, actually we have considered having the United Nations hold a conference on a Uniform Building Code -- this issue was discussed in teh draft resolution process several times. But unfortunately NationStates UN resolutions must focus on a SINGLE topic at a time and can't have different impacts. I'm honestly not sure if a Uniform Building Code is an environmental, international security, or moral decency issue, and had hoped to talk to the NationStates game mods to develop this -- after we pursue additional proposals to deal with things like hurricanes and earthquakes.

For the record, nearly 100 Swedes died in the Indian Ocean Tsunami. That is a straggering total for a nation that has "high cliffs" and itself is not at risk. A good government has a moral obligation to protect its citizens, and that could mean prohibiting your citizens from traveling to dangerous places (which sounds like a dictatorship to me) or by helping the local governments in the places they visit be safe (this sounds like the type of thing that Japan, the US, and many European countries are now doing).

Mikitivity is a land-locked country and cares about its citizens and neighbors. I'd like to ask that land-locked countries follow my government's example and consider voting in favour of this resolution.

Pointless and unjust resolution. We already have our own warning system which we payed for all by ourselves. Let the others do the same.

I think overall this is a good idea but some of the points, most notably #4 which asks for buoys across the surface of the water, seem a little absurd and a waste of resources, mainly time and money.

The Republic of Skinny87 has voted for this resolution and intends to fully support it. Surely a small increase in budgets is worth saving thousands, even millions of lives, not to mention the economic and trading impacts that Tsunami's could cause on entire regions

The Borderlands of Njorge are voting against this resolution as we feel that this is not going to be an effective system in stopping the Rare but tragic force of a tsunami. Furthermore we do not have the capital to spare to pay for such a system, and we feel that It is against our nations interests to raise the military and police budget at the expense of the working man and possibly his civil liberties.


And when the working man is swept away by the water, crushed under the falling debris, or starving to death because no one can reach him, what use are his civil liberties then?

My delegate is an utter basket case.
I'll foment a coup, replace her, and throw my region's votes in favor.

Shouldn't take more than a day.

Well if we give more money to militery and police forces that gives more power to the government and less to the people

Frequently asked questions concerning the Tsunami Warning System resolution:

Q: Is a global system even necessary? It sounds like spending a lot of money for something that is rare.

Tsunamis are not rare; but a tsunami event that damages widespread coastal areas seem to have occurred several times a century, in different oceans of the world. Some tsunamis can affect areas located over thousands of kilometers and cause historic levels of death, injuries, and property damage. Various seismic and tectonic events, such as earthquakes (measured at Ritcher scale 7.5 and above) occuring underwater, or volcanic eruptions that cause certain large scale water displacement in oceans, or the impact of sufficiently sized objects from space into a ocean, can trigger tsunamis. The cost of lives lost and disrupted, the cost of property damages, and the longer term economic impact is far greater than the costs associated with a global warning system.

Q: How much of the world’s oceans would have to be covered to make this a complete system?

That determination is a technical one, that should be determined by technical experts, but we would expect virtually all of the world’s oceans can be covered.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2365.htm

Q: What about other planets?

Since this is being proposed as a NationStates United Nations project, there is no reason that this project be limited to just the "Earth". However, the decision on what coasts are a priority to begin monitoring first is a decision best left to technical experts and not diplomats.

Q: Can this really work?

Yes. An existing system has been in place for the past forty years, and has been used to notify citizens and visitors to potentially threatened coastlines of potential tsunami events, and provide time for evacuations and other preventive measures.

Q: Why police and military budgets (aka International Security)?

Under the guidelines in use, the proposal involves some expenditures to increase the level of protection to the population of each country, which in general terms is a police function.

Q: How much would this cost?

The intention of the sponsoring group of nations is to leave the technical planning to the technical experts. We’re satisfied, however, that the overall cost of installation of a global bouy and sensor network, the land based sensors, the satellite and radio recivers and transmitters, and the staffing of a Tsunami Early Warning Center would not leave any nation with a coastline subject to a risk of a tsunami exposure without monitoring being available. This is based upon cost information of the elements of such systems already in place. See:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...m/quake_bush_dc
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ke_bush_plan_dc
There are animations at this link that shows how a major tsunami event can be observed worldwide. The number and location of the new sensors and bouys will be determined by the technical experts.

Q: Why does this resolution focus only on preventing loses associated with tsunamis when we know that we can predict other natural disasters as well?

Actually the authors of this resolution have also started work on a second proposal that would focus on other predictable natural disasters including things like hurricanes and floods. It was agreed by the sponsors of this resolution that there would not be enough room to include technical details appropriate for all of these natural disasters in a single resolution, but we felt it important to illustrate a degree of technical "direction" when creating this first resolution in order to lend credibility to the concept. Naturally our nations are committeed to fostering international disaster prevention and assistance, and would greatly appreciate any help in promoting similar UN activites that is offered.

Q: Why the reference to the International Red Cross Organization?

The International Red Cross Organization was created by NationStates United Nations resolution 29, and was designed to be the primary organization responsible for coordinating international disaster relief efforts. Though our resolution is creating a new organization to monitor and issue tsunami warnings, we did not want to take the IRCO away from its primary task, which is responding to actual disasters. It is our sincere hope that we can prevent disasters before the IRCO is needed, though our nations remain equally committeed to humanitarian aid.

:confused:
Madolvia would like to ask why should the UN pay for a Tsunami Early Warning System when other nations who are not UN members will also benefit from our nations expenditure.

Surely such a system should be a global concern rather than solely a UN concern. Although such systems are beneficial, they should be established on a global scale with all nations contributing rather than the financial responsibility resting on the UN yet again.

The Madolvian Foreign Secretary - Ms Xena Phobic.

Madolvia would like to ask why should the UN pay for a Tsunami Early Warning System when other nations who are not UN members will also benefit from our nations expenditure.

Surely such a system should be a global concern rather than solely a UN concern. Although such systems are beneficial, they should be established on a global scale with all nations contributing rather than the financial responsibility resting on the UN yet again.


You mean that non-UN members aren't required to pay.

My government is not in the United Nations, however, we will contribute the earthquake data as requested by this resolution, and we will provide funds for the UN to build the network and communication systems it talks about provided that the UN and IRCO both agree to send those warnings to us as well. (Naturally we'll also contribute resources to the IRCO as well.)

Hopefully other non-UN members will realize this is in our best interest.

So if this passes, to whom shall I cut a check?

p.s. I'd say we like this resolution, but that is a given. :)

Tsunamis will become more common. Because of Global Warming the water levels will rise, there will be more earthquakes in the oceans and the polar ice caps will melt. We need this system.

Thank You,
Krazie

The Republic of Krazie

:confused:
Madolvia would like to ask why should the UN pay for a Tsunami Early Warning System when other nations who are not UN members will also benefit from our nations expenditure.

Surely such a system should be a global concern rather than solely a UN concern. Although such systems are beneficial, they should be established on a global scale with all nations contributing rather than the financial responsibility resting on the UN yet again.

The Madolvian Foreign Secretary - Ms Xena Phobic.
The cost is really very low.

In the real world, it's being put together for a few tens of millions of dollars.
This would translate to a couple hundred thousand per nation.

My delegate is an utter basket case.
I'll foment a coup, replace her, and throw my region's votes in favor.

Shouldn't take more than a day.
The coup is on for tonight.
This time, the revolution will be televised.

For comparitive purposes, the expansion of the real world system from the Pacific, to include the southern Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic oceans isn't much more than $100 million or so in the next two years. That is based on information in the linked Yahoo! news article in the FAQ I posted at the beginning of the thread.

One of the really interesting links I posted (to the noaa.gov site) has an animation based on satellite surveillance of the oceans that shows the global progression of the December tsunamis -- even to the east coast of the United States and the European coast.....what an eye-opener that was.

And I should ass there are historical records of a tsunami hitting the east coast of what is now the United States in 1756 as a result of the Great Lisbon Earthquake. It wasn't realized at the time, so it sounds like someone, somewhere realized the common date and put two and two together. The modelling that was done to check this suggested the tsunamis that hit the US east coast at the time were 10 feet high.

I would also point out that several of the provisions in the resolution are in fact drafted to encourage cooperation and participation with all nations, not just UN members, in the construction and operation of the entire system, and to set up a standardized warning system and protocols for prevention and alerts to populations in any potentially affected nation.

The coup is on for tonight.
This time, the revolution will be televised.

Awesome. I just told my Ti-Vo to record it so I can relive every glorious moment again and again.

This is a worthwhile proposal that Enn is in favour of.

You've mentioned several things that really are untrue in the real world.

First, you've claimed that the current system (which we are talking about building a NationStates system) only gives a max of a 2 hour warning.

I've never read that anywhere, and I'd like you to provide a link to that.

Given the speed of such wave (300 - 500mph), 2 - 4 hour notice could be a likley result. the warning would largely depend on the locality of the sensors relative to the epicenter and the shore being warned. 2 hours warning would be easly sufficent to travel the 10 miles or so journey in-land (far less if travel uphill). For the recent tsunami a 1 mile journey away from the sea would have been sufficient to avoid much of the wave effects. The infrastructre to allow the warning to be made widely known rapidly is the more important issue and this is being taken into account within the proposal.

Howzatt fully agree to the resolution and would be happy to provide host to a Regional Tsunami Data Warning Centre (RTDWC). resident experts on such matters agree that the technique can be made more cost effective with quantity.

Howzatt oceanographers have been in discussion with the technical advisor to an existing system and can happily agree that the technology is proven and reliable for use in any area required. instrumentation is minimal in costs.
Howzatt experts also coment that some additional information gathered through this system would be useful for climate, and fishery studies. These inputs may well aid the preservation of many countries fishing or other marine industries.

I'm just wondering: will this be paid with taxes?

If this has already been brought up, please enlighten me aswell.

I'm just wondering: will this be paid with taxes?

If this has already been brought up, please enlighten me aswell.
The cost is pretty insignificant. Even one of the poor countries in any region could pay for the whole thing without the thirdgeek noticing it in their summaries.

It will most likely pass, and I see nothing problematic with the proposal.

One of the biggest mistakes and something the creator of the Theory of "Global Warming" regrets more than anything is the title, it is not just global warming it is global climate change. We have no idea what will happen in the future due to this trend.

I am the representative of my proud people and they feel that more technology is not the answer to our problems, but that education and less reliance on complicated logistics infrastructures is what we need.

Though I understand that all nations will feel the ripples on the water but as a nation that not only has a small simple economy, but one that primarily lives inland. Our people have been here for thousands of years and know the water as if they are at one with it. And also there has there never been a Tsunami in the history (Written) of Njorge, so we who are the people of the land of Njorge do not feel that our Karma and Dharma would merit such an event.

Though if a Tsunami does have deadly effects in any nation, even if they are of a corrupt or oppressive nature, we will take in refugees or provide any releif we can.

Though I understand that all nations will feel the ripples on the water but as a nation that not only has a small simple economy, but one that primarily lives inland. Our people have been here for thousands of years and know the water as if they are at one with it. And also there has there never been a Tsunami in the history (Written) of Njorge, so we who are the people of the land of Njorge do not feel that our Karma and Dharma would merit such an event.


I assume that you feel that you would not be affected by a natural Tsunami (your references to Karma and Dharma would imply that)? What about a man made one? Such as people doing nuclear testing - causing a landslide or an earthquake? Your gods may be protecting you from nature, but not from the actions of another nation.

And what if it comes from above? There are spacefaring nations who might (for some reason) cause a minor asteroid impact in the oceans around your nation which would cause chaos.

Assuming you will never be affected by something is (with no offence intended) foolish and arrogant, and generally a very good way to ensure it will happen in the near future :}

This resolution has some deep meaning to it, and it certainly would help such a loss again from happening...but I read somewhere in the resolution that it may have something to do with reverting tidal waves. Messing around with nature isn't a good thing, naturally, but otherwise I see no reason for this not to pass.

This resolution has some deep meaning to it, and it certainly would help such a loss again from happening...but I read somewhere in the resolution that it may have something to do with reverting tidal waves. Messing around with nature isn't a good thing, naturally, but otherwise I see no reason for this not to pass.

It really doesn't mention altering their course. Just making sure that no one is in their way while they are travelling this course.

Where did you read it? Just out of curiousity really :}

One of the biggest mistakes and something the creator of the Theory of "Global Warming" regrets more than anything is the title, it is not just global warming it is global climate change. We have no idea what will happen in the future due to this trend.

30 years ago the creator of the theory of global warming was warning about the impending ice age.

30 years ago the creator of the theory of global warming was warning about the impending ice age.

I suspect he was talking about the Milankovich cycle enduced ice age which is expected about now, rather than our antropogenic cause of the possable mini ice age similar to the younger dryas event, which would be due to the shut down of the atlantic and global currents.

tsunamis move close to the speed of sound (~625 mph) when in open water. notifying and evacuating millions of people takes far longer than the speed of the wave would allow. the PRC votes against a well meaning but mostly pointless resolution.

It really doesn't mention altering their course. Just making sure that no one is in their way while they are travelling this course.

Where did you read it? Just out of curiousity really :}

TilEnca is correct. There is nothing about tidal waves in the tsunami resolution. A tsunami is not a tidal wave. Tidal implies a connection to the Earth's tidal forces, while a tsunami is a wave that is generated by a significant displacement of water.

For example, throwing an orange into a filled bath tub would display water. The resulting wave is not "tidal" in nature, and therefore not a tidal wave.

The resolution is about building a warning system ... there is nothing there about changing the laws of physics, just detecting natural (and dangerous) events and warning governments.

tsunamis move close to the speed of sound (~625 mph) when in open water. notifying and evacuating millions of people takes far longer than the speed of the wave would allow. the PRC votes against a well meaning but mostly pointless resolution.
In the recent RW quake, scientists predicted within 15 minutes of the Dec. 26 quake that a substantial risk of tsunami existed. They then had an hour before the tsunami hit land, and 4 hours until it hit some of the worst-hit parts of India. The absence of a communications, transportation, and civil defense infrastructure in S. Asia cost tens of thousands of lives.

A tsunami on the scale of the Indonesian/Sri Lankan/Thailand tsunami will most likely not happen again in our life time, or our childrens for that matter. Why raise taxes for something like this when there's other crisises to be solved, such as civil war in Africa and the AIDs crisis?

We here at Magnifcata voted against this bill, this is a pointless waste of money, what you are suggesting would cost billions apon billions and Tsunami's are quite fast so it would give maybe a few seconds warning to the countries closest to the epi-center and a few min for the countries further away but they would have that warning anyways because they would have heard about the tsunami anyways as it starts, a few sec - few min is to short a time to save anybody so this is quite pointless.

We here at Magnifcata voted against this bill, this is a pointless waste of money, what you are suggesting would cost billions apon billions and Tsunami's are quite fast so it would give maybe a few seconds warning to the countries closest to the epi-center and a few min for the countries further away but they would have that warning anyways because they would have heard about the tsunami anyways as it starts, a few sec - few min is to short a time to save anybody so this is quite pointless.


We did an actual cost analysis and determined it would cost in the millions. It's in one of the threads linked to on the first page.

Anybody who claims this would cost billions of billions of dollars doesn't know what the HECK he / she is talking about. We've already talked about what the real-world system's cost is, but it is clear that the FAQs are being ignored.

Quick Recap:
In the real-world DART’s construction costs for building an additional 24 buoys is around US$ 30 million. The existing network (6 existing, 1 more in construction) of buoys cost about the same.

That equates to construction costs for about 31 buoys on the order of US$60 million. The operational costs of monitoring and maintenance probably liberally run around US$10 million. That is just my very LIBERAL (i.e high bookend) guess.



Q: How "Expensive" is US$10 to 100 million?

While a normal person sitting at a computer in his / her basement, might think that US$60 mil (one time) + US$10 mil / year sounds steep, let’s look at a few real-world price tags:

Super Bowl Ads

http://www.superbowl-info.com/super_bowl_commercials.htm
http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-67,00.html
http://xo.typepad.com/blog/2004/01/superbowl_ad_ra.html

In 2001 there were 69 30-second paid Super Bowl commercials. Each ad cost US$2 million for air time (not production). That is US$ 136 million for a single television event!

In 2004 that price has raised to US$2.25 million! Please think about that for a minute …

US Political Campaign Spending

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041021-113328-4826r.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/11/01/us_campaigncost041101.html
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa110300a.htm
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.fec.gov/press/sen%5Fhse20pre.htm

2004 Presidential Campaign Spending = ~US$600 million for TV and radio alone!
2003 California Governor’s Recall = ~US$80 million
2002 New York Governor’s Race = $148 million
2000 US Congressional Campaign Spending = ~US$683 million

The first link is from the Washington Times, and reports the 2004 Congressional and Presidential spending broke the $1 billon mark. And while as a former employee of Gray Davis’s I supported his recall (he was a horrible California Governor), the cost that the political candidates spent to get him recalled and themselves put in office is staggering!

US Inauguration Cost

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6717767/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144230,00.html

As we all know, President Bush was re-elected to the White House for a second term, so even though it is a new term, it isn’t as if he never had a fancy inauguration before. MSNBC and FoxNews reported the costs (minus security) to be US$30 to 40 million!

To say that the money for a buoy system doesn’t exist, there are a number of great sources of wasted money that could pay for systems the world over several times. While I’m not proposing that the UN dictate where each individual nation find that money, either turning to a tax on ads for a “Super Bowl” or a tax on political campaign spending easily illustrate that the money exists.

The money for the Bush second inauguration (which seems silly to me, as when I graduated from grad school I saw no need to REPEAT what I went through as an undergrad … I just took my diploma and got a job, as simple as that) came from corporations like Home Depot. The question is, why are they spending their money on these things? What is the benefit to them?

Why raise taxes for something like this when there's other crisises to be solved, such as civil war in Africa and the AIDs crisis?

Because we can deal with AIDS and Tsunamis at the same time.

US$10 million to $100 million is nothing. Anybody arguing about how high the cost is, isn't really looking at real world government expeditures. How much money is the US pumping into the War in Iraq? Compare that with the existing cost of NOAA's DART system and can you honestly sit there and tell us that this is too much?

But this is NationStates ... so let's talk about the AIDS crisis. The NationStates United Nations already is dealing with that. Look at the old resolutions:

Global AIS Initiative (#32)
Increased Access to Medicine (#42)
Needle Sharing Prevention (#67)
HS HIV AIDS Act (#84)

That is four resolutions dealing with AIDS in two years.

How many resolutions dealing with tsunamis have we written?
ZERO.

How many resolutions dealing with childrens rights have we written?
About 6.

How many resolutions dealing with discrimination?
About 5.


In the real world do governments only do one thing at a time? For example, does your local city go to tax payers and say, "Ahem, people, we can only pay for one of the following: schools, fire stations, hospitals, or public swimming pools. We've decided you need fire stations, so from this point forward the public swimming pool will be closed (even though it is cheap to operate), and if you have an auto accident you might want to send your child to private school to learn to become a doctor, because we'll be closing the hospitals and schools. Thank you, good day." ???

Of course not.

I'm going to challenge anybody who wants to say this will cost too much to show us why the estimates of $10 to $100 million US dollars is too much. Show us other programs and their costs.

I'm confident that when you sit down and really look at the cheap cost of a tsunami warning system and compare that to many other things (say California's cost of prisons or public education) that you'll honestly be surprised by the difference.

Why do you care? It's their money and they worked for it. What business is it of yours what they do with their own things?

As someone said I feel this is a well meaning but ineffective solution...

also Karma applies to all things, as all actions are interconnected and intertwined.

Yes I understand that It would effect me I did not mean to sound the way I did... I do feel though that though the projected costs may be 10-100 million what about once this system becomes outdated like the old one did? and What is the upkeep if we keep this system for the net 300 years? Who will get the contracts to provide upkeep and repairs? The money isn't the real issue at heart anymore after I've seen the projected costs.
on the other hand
I believe this resolution will pass, but feel that in nature to believe we can control it and reduce it to a small liability is even greater foolishness and will lead to even greater carelessness and less respect for Nature.

I respect all of these opinions and those who replied to my thoughts I thank you for only in questions and discussion can we achieve higher level of thought.

I will now change my vote... for anything that saves lives, no matter how few, is worth having and I hope this system may benifit those who are most in need of this type of warning system.

I'm shocked at the attitude some have taken on this proposal, and that attitude is one of "I'm not a coastal nation, why should I provide money to a nation afflicted with coastal concerns?"

Is it wrong to provide aid to a sister nation in need? If your nation was facing a disaster concerning other natural phenomena and it devastated your economy and resources in the way a tsunami can, but other nations didn't have the same problem, would you expect them not to help?

I'd guess that one thing about being a member of the United Nations means you'd want to help your sister nations, not just to get help when you need it.

Why do you care? It's their money and they worked for it. What business is it of yours what they do with their own things?

They are examples used to illustrate that the cost (say $60 million to construct a network of ~31 buoys) is nothing compared to the combined cost of:

1 US Presidential Election Ads: $600 million
1 Election Ads for Everybody in Congress: $600 million
1 California Recall Ads: $80 million
1 New York Governor's Race Ads: $140 million
1 Super Bowl's Worth of Ads: $136 million
1 Inauguration for a Guy who ALREADY is in office: $40 million

People want to tell me that an INTERNATIONAL warning system that could perhaps have prevented 10,000s of lives lost (I'm assuming that of the 200,000 dead, that 100,000 died in the first two hours) costs too much???!!!??

Come on!

Off the top of my head in *1* day, I came up with 6 __advertisements__ and parties / festivals that roughly occur once every four years that cost a total of $1.6 billion!

The real world's DART network (at $60 million) is 53 times less than those figures, and I've not even started to pull out SuperFund costs, the War in Iraq, the actual costs of just holding elections, College Education costs, you name it. The reason I've not costed out this second list of items, is because they *are* also important. But I could just as easily have done that in order to "scale" costs.


In the real world I'm an engineer. I'm telling you that with the technology we have today, a tsunami warning system is possible. I'd like to ask everybody to consider giving our make-believe scientists a chance to make that a reality in our fantasy world.

In the real world, I am funded, in part through a joint Federal-State program called "CALFED". CALFED has a budget of roughly $8.5 billion for projects in the State of California alone for a 7 year period.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2003/resources/res_2_cc_calfed_anl03.htm

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Pursuant to a federal-state accord signed in 1994, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (CALFED) was administratively created as a consortium of state and federal agencies that have regulatory authority over water and resource management responsibilities in the Bay-Delta region. CALFED now encompasses 11 state and 13 federal agencies. The objectives of the program are to:

* Provide good water quality for all uses.
* Improve fish and wildlife habitat.
* Reduce the gap between water supplies and projected demand.
* Reduce the risks with deteriorating levees.

After five years of planning, CALFED began to implement programs and construct projects in 2000. The program's implementation—which is anticipated to last 30 years—is guided by the "Record of Decision" (ROD). The ROD represents the approval by the lead CALFED agencies of the final environmental review documents for the CALFED "plan." Among other things, the ROD lays out the roles and responsibilities of each participating agency, sets goals for the program and types of projects to be pursued, and includes an estimate of the program's costs for its first seven years. In the ROD, these costs are projected to total $8.5 billion for the program's first seven years (2000-01 through 2006-07).

When somebody comes here and tells me that a tsunami warning system will cost $1 billion in NationStates, I think it is a pretty darn fair question for me to ask "Why do you think this?"

When somebody comes and says, "It just costs way to much?", I again think it is reasonsible for me to ask them, "Are you aware of the costs of political campaigns or environmental / water supply programs for a single US state? And do you realize that they cost 10 to 50 times more in the real world than what we are talking about here?"

I can easily bring up data on price tags for any number of government or private sector programs. I think there are things that with a bit of hunting and reflection that most people will begin to say, "Gee, that is excessive ... and compared to those excessive things, a warning system that might prevent the loss of 10,000s of people sounds like a good idea."


Now mind you, we've already posted links to NOAA reports that also quote that the DART system has already saved Hawaii $68 million for screening out false tsunami warnings.

People also tend to forget that by screening out a false warning, a tsunami network can call off an evacuation and save governments $10s millions! That is a huge savings ... and in the public works and safety world in which I live, engineers and economists call this an economic benefit. It is money that is *saved*.

While I understand that NationStates isn't the real world, we tried really hard to remove all real-world references from this resolution. Why did we do this? Simple, the game moderators are very adept about DELETING proposals that have real world references. We didn't want to make a resolution that would anger the game moderators ... we tried very hard to write something that sounded economically sound (and we've gone to great efforts to show why we believe this is true via links to credible real-world government pages), but also flexible enough for NationStates.

It is very disheartening to really *know* how much these systems cost and many other real-life systems and the most detailed counter argument is ...

"This is stupid! This costs way too much!"

If people want to say something costs too much, they should provide reasons for where they came to this conclusion. If they don't, I think it is fair to use comparisons like those I've shown. I honestly think most reasonable people will be shocked at just how cheap this network can be and will vote in favour once they've seen the relative real-world costs of these ideas.

*thumps up* I like it.

okey, our point was clearly not clear enough, our point was why spend billions apon billions, which you now say is millions, on a system that can give what a 3-4 hour warning max, in that time you can hardly clear out many people. A coastal area inhabited by lets say a million and you can GUESS where the tsunami is going to hit the hardest, then you have to get our millitary over there (more money here) plus the millitary has to be on a constant alert about this to be able to react quickly enough (way more money here) and still there isn't a change in hell he can get half the people out of harms way. Sure in some of the welthy low populated countries this would be possible but in poor countries with big population you can say bye bye to many of the residents anyway.

This is no good. We here in Magnificata say: "Keep searching for a better solution."

As this proposal is going to pass hugely,


Votes For: 4,479

Votes Against: 742


Vastiva has been working on drasticly lowering our tax base to make room for the projected increase when this passes.

okey, our point was clearly not clear enough, our point was why spend billions apon billions, which you now say is millions, on a system that can give what a 3-4 hour warning max, in that time you can hardly clear out many people.

Let's get some things straight here ...

First
I don't know which player it was who billions upon (not apon) billions, but whomever said it didn't know what the heck he is talking about. I'll have to go back and look, but it is my educated guess that he was just making the number up out of thin air.

We've (those in favour of this resolution) been quoting a real-world price tage of millions all along (read the first few posts in this thread -- it was a question raised weeks ago). Please don't try and make it seem like we are changing our story. We aren't. We've been sending telegrams and emails working on this resolution since Dec. 27, and we've gone to the effort to do some very extensive research. In short, we really do care about this particular topic and take it most seriously.


Second
A 3-4 hour warning is enough to evacuate people to higher land. As another poster already pointed out, moving a mile inland is often enough. The race isn't to really move people 10s of miles, but really just get them to a safe zone.

Let's pretend that you want to claim that your country is completely flat, and only 1 m above sea level. Everywhere. And that the UN issues a tsunami warning and you must save your people in 3 hours.

There is an easy alternative here, covered by the resolution ...

Build structures that are 10 m tall (30 ft high) that people can retreat to. Put up warning signs on your beaches and do what the Hawaiians do ... put up sirens on the beaches. If the UN phones your government and says, "Danger! Danger Will Robinson!" it only takes the on duty emergency coordinator for your country to flip a switch and active "Tsunami Warning Sirens" (remember the US also had civil defense air raid sirens in many eastern sea board cities back during the second world war ... this stuff is incredibly easy to build and maintain). Let's also assume that your government teaches school kids that when they hear the sirens to run for a building marked "Tsunami Shelter".

Again, as a kid in Texas we had Tornado drills and Fire drills (obviously for hurricanes there would be enough time to not be at school). Alarms would sound in Texas schools and we'd either hurry outside to safety in the case of a fire or run into the shelters (bathrooms usually) instead the school. (Texas has tons of natural disasters, including tornados, hurricanes, and flash floods ... and the people adapted very well.)

Being an engineer, I can promise you that with each major Earthquake that we learn how to create building codes that make safter buildings. With each Hurricane or Tornado we also design buildings that are better adpated towards dealing with high winds and flood conditions. In south Texas (I've lived through one of the most destructive Hurricanes, Alicia, which prior to 2004 was the 10th most costly hurricane) appartment buildings in high flood risk areas are often built on stilts. Again, I assure you that while a wave associated with a tsunami is powerful, that a *well* designed structure can be created with our technology today that stands a pretty good change of weathering the waves.

In Indonesia (sp?) the areas devastated were incredibly poor. People may have run, but most reports are that people weren't use to tsunamis there and actually walked out to the ocean! :(

There are numerous stories of survivors, all of them amazing. And in most cases they are about how people ran to higher ground or jumped onto large buildings.

One of my co-workers is Sri Lankan and his brother was at a restort in Sri Lanka when the tsunami hit Sri Lanka. He said that he was in a swimming pool and noticed something odd in the ocean. He said that his instinct was to find his family and run, so he grabbed his son and sprinted inland. He told my friend (his brother) that after the waves hit, that when he came back to the pool at the resort (the buildings survived there), that some of the people in the pool who ran to the beach were dead in the pool! :(

We pushed hard for a standard warning system (not just the buoy network), and it is incredibly easy to tell school teachers how to teach common sense into school children. In Texas they also taught us on how to survive a tornado if we were driving on a road. Basically it is well know that tornados will tend to "hop" or "skip" from hill to hill. We were told that if we were driving and couldn't advoid a tornado, to get under a freeway bridge *or* to jump into a pond or ditch! Water lies at low elevation points, so by ducking in water, there is a better chance that you might live.

They also taught us about how to prepare your homes in the event of a tornado ... and what to do in hurricanes.

I honestly and truely think that people who call prevention silly are actually inexperienced with true natural disasters *and* that they are just having a knee-jerk reaction. :( It is easy and cheap to develop good standards and practices that help save lives.

And you can make use of things like shelters and sirens to better warn people.

I think a 2 hour warning is in many cases enough for people to quickly walk to higher ground. I think even a 30-minute warning would be enough for people to run to a shelter.

Shelters are of course never full proof. There are horror stories from Dresden about how when the US destroyed the city of German citizens burning to death in their bomb shelters.

But we've learned much since then, and real-world or fantasy, engineers can do amazing things when they put their minds to it.


I know I'm mixing OOC stuff with IC material, please forgive me. :)

I know I'm mixing OOC stuff with IC material, please forgive me. :)

That is no proplem because this is the best answer i have seen here. It came pretty close to convincing me even. :P

Vastiva, it isn't going to cost one country that much.
As Mikitivity pointed out, we've paid attention in looking at media article and online references on this topic in preparing the three drafts of this resolution.
One problem is saying that the system needs X number of buoys and sensors, and other hardware for the entire planet in the NationStates universe . You tell us what the planetary surface looks like, and so forth, then we could give you a estimate based on that. There's no such map so we're doing the next best thing, and looking at what the real world planners and experts are saying is required. As I mentioned upthread, if you go look at the articles linked from Yahoo.com (or even CNN.com) you'll find that (1) the cost of the global extension by the UN and the US is essentially around $100 million more or less; and (2) the donor nations have already all but covered the costs to extend the program.
That's basically the bottom line, that is as much as we can describe without more information about the NationStates world. Given the costs we've seen for both construction and the staffing and maintenance for the system, we don't think it will be shown to be expensive or lack effective tools.

edited to add: I basically concur and confirm what Mikitivity posted just above as well. My background is as a lawyer, but a part if that is having a skill to be able to comprehend, absorb, and sythethesie information involving technical fields of expertise to a level that one could skillfully cross-examine and expert. I used that skill is looking at the pieces of thie information that supports this resolution, and given the game rules of NationStates, there isn't much more that can be done within the limits of the resolution,

I honestly and truely think that people who call prevention silly are actually inexperienced with true natural disasters *and* that they are just having a knee-jerk reaction. :( It is easy and cheap to develop good standards and practices that help save lives.

That is another thing. I come from Iceland. Here we have earthquacks, volcanic eroptions and snowfloods so I do know the importance of teaching people how to react in crisis. I was never saying that nothing should be done but after all i learned about tsunami both in school and researching on my own i think there could be better answers then this. 3-4 hours warning is the maximum warning. i some cases the tsunami can be there in a very short time. Japan is the nation which has the most expireance with Tsunami's and they have been working on prediction methoods for quite some time i think but are far from having a good enough program. We need to start with extencive testing and research before we jump to conclutions and built what is best today and might be absolute tomorrow even.

good arguments from your side none the less. (btw i am not forcing my believes or anything like that, i am just explaining why i voted against this proposal. There is nothing i hate more than people or governments forcing their believes on to otheres)

Prevention is better than Cure, they say.

I doubt we'd be able to prevent Nature taking its course; but I strongly believe we can Limit the Amount & Levels of damages the next
Tsunami will bring.

Setting up a warning system is of immerse benefit.

I am in support of an early warning system being put in place.

I do have a question, for Nations that can't afford such a system, where lies their fate?

okey, our point was clearly not clear enough, our point was why spend billions apon billions, which you now say is millions, on a system that can give what a 3-4 hour warning max, in that time you can hardly clear out many people. A coastal area inhabited by lets say a million and you can GUESS where the tsunami is going to hit the hardest, then you have to get our millitary over there (more money here) plus the millitary has to be on a constant alert about this to be able to react quickly enough (way more money here) and still there isn't a change in hell he can get half the people out of harms way. Sure in some of the welthy low populated countries this would be possible but in poor countries with big population you can say bye bye to many of the residents anyway.

This is no good. We here in Magnificata say: "Keep searching for a better solution."

Could you provide an example of a better solution?

And - by the by - even if you only manage to evacuate half the coastal residents, that is still a lot of lives saved.

to find a good enough solution would take quite some time and a lot of work and frankly #OOC: i don't have the time for that. :(

to find a good enough solution would take quite some time and a lot of work and frankly #OOC: i don't have the time for that. :(

So rather than support an interim system that will save some, if not all, lives, you are going to vote against it and save no lives at all?

That is another thing. I come from Iceland. Here we have earthquacks, volcanic eroptions and snowfloods so I do know the importance of teaching people how to react in crisis. I was never saying that nothing should be done but after all i learned about tsunami both in school and researching on my own i think there could be better answers then this. 3-4 hours warning is the maximum warning. i some cases the tsunami can be there in a very short time. Japan is the nation which has the most expireance with Tsunami's and they have been working on prediction methoods for quite some time i think but are far from having a good enough program. We need to start with extencive testing and research before we jump to conclutions and built what is best today and might be absolute tomorrow even.

good arguments from your side none the less. (btw i am not forcing my believes or anything like that, i am just explaining why i voted against this proposal. There is nothing i hate more than people or governments forcing their believes on to otheres)

I understand your concerns, I hear what you are saying, and in principle, you are correct. Why should the rest of the world support the challenges of a coastal state? You are not, however, looking at the big picture.

Most natural disasters do not have early warning systems. Even the ones that do, like hurricanes, still do not guarantee anything. How many times did the projected course of the 4 hurricanes that hit Florida this past summer change directions? But it was better than nothing. The people of this state had time to make a choice; the tsunami victims had none. 2-3 hours is better than nothing, and frankly, worth any price. Finally, this time could have given the people chances to prepare their belongings and perhaps reduced the overall cost of the recovery efforts.

If this disaster was one of their own choosing or if it was a result of their lack of whatever, then I might agree with you but we live in a smaller world and we cannot just sit in a hole and not help. This resolution seems to be a no-brainer.

While it looks like this resolution will resoundingly pass, the Rogue Nation of Joekerland will not support ...boosting police and military budgets for any reason.

I agree with all ten steps this resolution will enact, but I feel that #8 is the slippery slope that allows ...boosting police and military budgets which the neoconservatives will use to help establish its New World Order.

We will abide by majority vote, of course. We wanted to make sure that our protest against this part of the resolution is known.

Joeker - Dictator of the Rogue States of Joekerland
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=joekerland

Having listened to the discussion in this august forum. We have yet to be convinced of the wisdom of increasing our military budget for this purpose.

We would rather that the insurance sector took most of the burden of financing this project, this is because damage to property and loss of life would be greatly reduced on completion of the project.

Our military is always available to assist TRCO in an emergency, our police assist within our national boundaries that part is already fully supported in McGonagall.

So we say to our fellow delegates, please do not be rushed into a rash decision on a proposal that will change the economic budgets of your nations. This proposal can be rejected for now and introduced again later in a form more satisfactory to the majority of nations.

We will of course comply with the majority vote.

We would rather that the insurance sector took most of the burden of financing this project, this is because damage to property and loss of life would be greatly reduced on completion of the project.


Thousands of people are starving and dying, and you want to send insurance agents to rescue them?


So we say to our fellow delegates, please do not be rushed into a rash decision on a proposal that will change the economic budgets of your nations. This proposal can be rejected for now and introduced again later in a form more satisfactory to the majority of nations.


If it passes in this form it would be satisfactory to the majority of the nations, wouldn't you agree?

Having listened to the discussion in this august forum. We have yet to be convinced of the wisdom of increasing our military budget for this purpose.

So we say to our fellow delegates, please do not be rushed into a rash decision on a proposal that will change the economic budgets of your nations. This proposal can be rejected for now and introduced again later in a form more satisfactory to the majority of nations.

We will of course comply with the majority vote.

In the game, the International Security category also is used to reflect increases in budgets for emergency personnel like fire fighters.

Of the 2,819 people who died in the 9/11 attacks, 343 of them were firefighters.

source:
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/numbers.htm

If a tsunami is about to hit your nation, the people who will be in charge of helping to prevent it will likely be police officers.


After the Indian Ocean Tsunami, one of the many groups ready to come to the aid of the survivors was the US military.

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20041228-1905.html

Thailand's decision to allow use of this Thai military facility is welcomed. The U.S. intends to use, with Thailand's cooperation, this military facility as a regional support center for emergency and medical personnel providing assistance throughout the region as well as a staging area for U.S. military and rescue aircraft, forensic experts, and other relief assistance.

{snip}

U.S. military exercises often include training for humanitarian assistance. This humanitarian assistance training helps ensure the U.S. military is able to rapidly respond as directed to support relief efforts.


In NationStates, military budgets aren't just bombs and ray guns. Military budgets include things like space sciences research (see the Tracking Near Earth Objects resolution for an example) or increasing the ability for nations to send in supplies which could be used *either* in response to war or a natural disaster.

Don't trust a defense department web page? Try this instead:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/03/military.mission.ap/

A three-ship group carrying 2,200 Marines of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit and led by the USS Bonhomme Richard, with 24 helicopters, is headed to the Bay of Bengal. It's not yet clear how many of those Marines will go ashore once they reach their destination, but their ships offer a variety of potential aid, including water purification equipment and medical supplies.

While immediate aid was a priority, the military also was planning for the longer term, as indicated by the Pentagon's decision Monday to send the USNS Mercy, a 1,000-bed hospital ship that is based in San Diego and will take an estimated 33 days to reach south Asia.

Here is the real kicker ... where do you think people are getting water and food from?

Those six ships also have water purification equipment that is capable of producing 600 gallons of potable water per hour from sea water. They can pump water from ship to shore from up to two miles away using floating hoses, according to a Military Sealift Command fact sheet.

Most people don't bother to really pay attention to the international world around them, but if they had, they'd be familiar with things like:

For the United States, a superpower sometimes depicted abroad as a warmonger, the tsunami disaster is an opportunity to show that the U.S. military's global reach can deliver significant humanitarian help.

In fact the military frequently provides humanitarian aid abroad, albeit on a much smaller scale. Usually it garners little or no international attention for these efforts unless they are conducted as part of a warfighting mission, as is currently the case in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In early December, more than 600 Marines and other U.S. service members responded to a call for help from the Philippines after tropical storms triggered floods and landslides that killed hundreds. More than a half-million pounds of relief supplies had been delivered by air within seven days.


This isn't the only example. When flying back to the US from Germany last June, I was talking to a soldier who was part of the US Army Engineers Corps (different that the domestic based Army Corps of Engineers). He spent several years practicing building bridges and roads in Europe, and after the war, was frequently sent to Iraq (though he was still stationed in Germany officially). Granted, in Iraq one could argue that the US was obligated to repair those bridges ... but in the real-world that money is being pay via military budgets.

NationStates is not perfect, but if the category was wrong, the game mods would have deleted the proposal. Those of us that wrote this resolution felt that by specifically stating that the purpose for the increase was for emergency response and prevention planning that we'd be sending a clear single that we aren't wanting nations to build weapons, but just to increase their ability to prevent and respond to natural disasters. Furthermore, the satellites used to transmit DART buoy and seismic data are often military satellites ...

But do you see a better NationStates UN resolution category? Is this better handled as a Recreational Drug resolution? Of course not! Is this perhaps a Free Trade resolution? That is just silly.

I oppose this resolution, not because I don't care about the need of humanity,

Yes a warning system can give anywhere between 5-30 minutes advanced warning, what good will that do in a under devolped seaside community with littel or no communcation capabilities?

Also given the ability of the equipment to pick up even the most sensitve seismic activity has implication on a nations national security. These senors will be able to pick up the detonation of weapon systems within a nations boundaries, knowing the distance and energy displaced from a weapons test this system could be used to monitor and calculate the power of the weapons detonation. It is in every nations best interest to keep it weapons systems abilities a closely guarded secret.

In my opinion, a resolution calling for the forward storage of relief supplies would have a better effect than a warning system. Allowing aid and recovery equipment to reach effected areas much sooner. With a lower cost to the government, U.N. and world aid agencies than a proposed warning system.

Depending on the location of the tsunami event, what is to garuntee (again excuse the poor english) the system will not be damaged and fail.

But thats just my 2 cents worth...

Yes a warning system can give anywhere between 5-30 minutes advanced warning, what good will that do in a under devolped seaside community with littel or no communcation capabilities?

In my opinion, a resolution calling for the forward storage of relief supplies would have a better effect than a warning system. Allowing aid and recovery equipment to reach effected areas much sooner. With a lower cost to the government, U.N. and world aid agencies than a proposed warning system.

Depending on the location of the tsunami event, what is to garuntee (again excuse the poor english) the system will not be damaged and fail.

Actually the resolution does call for the advanced storage of relief supplies:

5. DIRECTS the TEWC to develop a standardized tsunami warning protocol that can be used in member nations that can be easily recognized by citizens and travelers;

6. MANDATES that the TEWC transmit advisory warnings to member nations based on its timely analysis of data collected by both the seismic and water surface monitoring programs;

7. CALLS UPON member nations to provide the TEWC with emergency contact centers that can quickly respond to tsunami warnings issued by the TEWC;

8. REITERATES the need for member nations to develop evacuation and response plans in the event of a tsunami warning by ensuring that adequate emergency response teams and equipment is available to deal with the likely damages associated with a tsunami appropriate for that nation;

9. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that in the event of a tsunami disaster that nations will continue to offer humanitarian assistance to affected nations; and

10. ASKS that member nations work with the International Red Cross Organization to coordinate international tsunami relief efforts.


I copied all of these clauses, because it also talks about standard warning protocols. The reality isn't just that a warning will give as you quote, 5 to 30 minutes of warning, but in some cases that warning could be hours. It only takes a few minutes for people to run to higher ground or a shelter. In 2 or more hours, people would probably even take possessions with them.

I honestly think all of the points you raised have been addressed in the text of the resolution, but they've also been discussed here in this thread.

I understand that the resolution is long and that makes it hard to read, but I'm hoping now that I've pointed out the text that you might change your mind. :)

Personally, I see it as too specific. Why specify an organization purely for tsunamis?

I'd prefer to see an organization designed to watch for and warn against all natural disasters, not just tsunamis. Divisions within that organization could be dedicated to watching for specific types of disasters - tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc - and issue warnings as necessary.

Personally, I see it as too specific. Why specify an organization purely for tsunamis?

I'd prefer to see an organization designed to watch for and warn against all natural disasters, not just tsunamis. Divisions within that organization could be dedicated to watching for specific types of disasters - tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc - and issue warnings as necessary.

From the FAQs posted on the first page of the thread:

Q: Why does this resolution focus only on preventing loses associated with tsunamis when we know that we can predict other natural disasters as well?

Actually the authors of this resolution have also started work on a second proposal that would focus on other predictable natural disasters including things like hurricanes and floods. It was agreed by the sponsors of this resolution that there would not be enough room to include technical details appropriate for all of these natural disasters in a single resolution, but we felt it important to illustrate a degree of technical "direction" when creating this first resolution in order to lend credibility to the concept. Naturally our nations are committeed to fostering international disaster prevention and assistance, and would greatly appreciate any help in promoting similar UN activites that is offered.

There is nothing that would prevent the next resolution to incorporate the tsunami warning center into a broader center as the series of resolutions the sponsors anticipate are proposed and (hopefully) brought to the floor. But as noted, there are technical limits in the proposal process that cannot be ignored, so we made the judgment to stick with the tsunami issue for now, including the organizational structures required.

The sheer cost of the resolution right now for just watching out for distasters associated with tsunamis would be tremendous.

Not to mention, however, how Tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions are always somehow related. The people part of this new organization would have to be familier with all those forms or disaster, and perhaps more.

I support a tsunami warning system because much of my nation (though not all of it) has a coastline. There have not been any tsunamis of note for us but there have been a few minor ones where few people live. (Courtesy Hialtinewsnet.com Service 2)

However I hear the big one is coming for our entire region. Out on our west coasts on the Region of Thinking, we have two big-time fault lines that may converge in the next 20-30 years.

The sheer cost of the resolution right now for just watching out for distasters associated with tsunamis would be tremendous.

Not to mention, however, how Tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions are always somehow related. The people part of this new organization would have to be familier with all those forms or disaster, and perhaps more.
Grosseschnauzer sincerely hopes that the delegate from Laskon can look at the FAQs provided on the first page of this thread as well as the links provided there. The sponsoring group of nations were aware of such concerns early in the drafting process and took every reasonable step to refine those issues during the discussions of the earlier drafts of the resolution, which were published in these forums. (A link is included to those discussions in the third post on the first page of this thread.)

The sponsoring groups of nations have carefully reviewed the costs assoicated with the implementation and maintenance of the proposed system, and as pointed out by Mikitivity, earlier in this thread, the relative costs are not all that tremendous when spread worldwide. The technical experts would clearly include semsimogists, oceanagraphers, information technology specialists, and other specialists whose expertise is relevant to the system. Because of existing technology, a huge staff would not be required. Thus, the annual costs for staffing the warning center and maintaining the bouys, sensors, and other hardware and equipment, would likewise be manageable. (All we can do is state that as a conclusion, absent a way to translate geography from the NS universe, as well as currency. )

We hope that, once this information is reviewed and considered, you will be able to support the resolution.

The inhabitants of the Velvet Underground remain sceptical as to this proposal. It is misleading to suggest that the current warning systems are inadequate. If we consider the recent real life tsunami which we believe to be the sole mobilising factor behind the current enthusiasm for the current proposal, there are many issues which are ignored by the international community. First, scientists recorded the original tremors of the tectonic plate movement. They knew that a large tsunami would be the result. Surely sensors on the ocean itself are superfluous, and their maintenance costs would be high. We agree that communication should be improved between scientists and emergency response units within nation states, but this does not fall within the international remit.
Second, the attempt to take the moral high ground and ask all nations, coastal or not, to pay for the warning system is irrational. If non coastal nations wish to use their tax payers money to help pay for the system that is fine, but it should not be an obligation. Returning to the real life example in S.E Asia we should consider the role of the governments of the nations affected. When the Thai officials were notifed of the tsunami threat they refused to issue an evacuation message for fear it could harm their tourist industry. Warnings could not be sent to other regions in neighbouring countries due to their being under rebel command in the midst of civil wars. The moral responsibility of the nations not affected by such disasters should be to reform the way that we live to ensure that natural disasters are not caused by our destruction of the environment.
Finally, we question whether this proposal should be so specific to tsunamis and if it would be better suited agenda setting for co-ordinated international responses to all natural disasters.

Second, the attempt to take the moral high ground and ask all nations, coastal or not, to pay for the warning system is irrational. If non coastal nations wish to use their tax payers money to help pay for the system that is fine, but it should not be an obligation.

NationStates UN resolutions impact all or none. That is a hard fast rule, and if you honestly don't believe me, I suggest you ask the following question on the moderation forum:

"Can I write a resolution that only targets a certain number or fraction of UN members?"

I promise you that one of the NationStates game mods will tell you that such a resolution is a violation of game rules.

However, there are ways to write a resolution such that it might seem to do this. Phrases like:

... as necessary
... as needed
... major capabilities
... highest at risk

And we did in fact use just such a phrase.

Rest assured that the game actually does weigh the consequences of __some__ UN resolutions on nations based on their current game stats. I honestly haven't seen Cog write about international security resolutions, but he has written how Human Rights resolutions really impact the nations that are in the center more than those with high civil freedoms stats.

For example, let's say we adopt another Gay Rights resolution (a likely prospect). And that new resolution is Significant ... an increase on a nation with a Superior civil freedoms is not really going to change things, but an increase in civil freedoms in a nation that is just "Fair" will have a more profound impact on that society.

NationStates wasn't really designed to handle something like what we've done here, but what is presented is the best compromise we could come up with. If you have a better idea that is LEGAL, please present it. But in my year of experience in the UN here, I've pretty much tweaked every nob possible, with the exception of: Gun Control, Gambling, and Recreational Drug Use. I've not touched those topics, because honestly I think the UN has no business with them.

p.s. there already is a resolution dealing with responding to natural disasters (the IRCO) ... we wanted instead to prevent something that could be predicted in advance ... we also are working on another one for other natural disasters ... bear in mind that there are tons of "Save the Trees" or "AIDS" types of resolutions already, and I don't think it wrong to spend just a few on preventing natural disasters and saving lives. Do you?

The proponents of this bill have argued that the cost is small, in the range of the hundreds of millions of dollars, and shared throughout the world that cost would be nearly negligible.

Fair enough. Let's analogize. You have a burglar alarm installed on your car. Someone else offers to give you another alarm, with the same capabilities, and install it for you for only $5. Do you allow him to install it? Is any purpose served by having a second alarm?

This is exactly what the current proposal will achieve. Independent buoy systems already exist in most parts of the world. Regional co-operational agreements already exist to share information and relay tsunami warnings to the affected areas.

This particular proposal has been inspired by a real world event. The solution should be similarly inspired: http://news.newkerala.com/india-news/?action=fullnews&id=64241

[India News]: New Delhi, Jan. 24 : Minister for Science and Technology and Ocean Development, Kapil Sibal said today, India has decided to set up its own Tsunami early warning system along the fault lines stretching from Java-Sumatra to Myanmar in the Indian Ocean region and in the Arabian Sea.

Addressing at a press conference here today, Sibal said that the country is, however, prepared to share the information with neighbouring countries e.g., Myanmar, Sri Lanka etc. provided they install the Receiving systems and get networked into the Indian system. He said that the recent Kobe Conclave on Tsunami had endorsed steps taken by India and had assured it of both financial and technical assistance.

India is setting up its own network and arranging with neighboring countries to share information. They are solving a regional problem through regional cooperation. The UN is not involved in the real world, and should not be in NationStates.

Cabinia, let's look at numbered clauses 2 and 3 of the resolution:

2. REQUESTS member nations to forward seismic data already being collected to the TEWC to aid in its research and monitoring program;

3. SUGGESTS that governments that do not have seismic networks work with the TEWC and other nations in order to enhance existing seismic monitoring and planetary and oceanography programs (which can be considered linked to police and emergency response budgets for the purposes of NationStates);

Both clauses clearly recognize the existence of existing data collection programs and warning systems, and propose that the data and other systems be utilized as part of an overall global program involved shared information, technology and resources. I believe that addresses your first complaint.

As to the RL systems, there are two expansions underfoot that we've previously made mention of. One is a system for the Indian Ocean, in which the RL United Nations is involved, and to which nations involved in the Pacific Ocean system already in existence have pledged assistance, including costs, and the second is an expansion announced by the RL United States to add additional sensors and bouys in the Pacific Ocean, expand coverage to the southern/southwestern Pacific Ocean, as well as set up a system for the Atlantic Ocean and ithe Carribbean Sea basin within two years. After these expansions, from what I've been able to tell the only oceans that wouldn't be covered at that point are the Southern Atlantic Ocean and the Arctic Ocean. We don't have to exactly duplicate the RL solution; but I will point out that several of the Indian Ocean nations raised cost issues, and those concerns have already been addressed by donor nations and the RL United Nations.

GS, thank you for that reply! :)

I'd like to add to what Grosseschnauzer wrote ... by highlighting to neglected portions of the resolution text:

5. DIRECTS the TEWC to develop a standardized tsunami warning protocol that can be used in member nations that can be easily recognized by citizens and travelers;

6. MANDATES that the TEWC transmit advisory warnings to member nations based on its timely analysis of data collected by both the seismic and water surface monitoring programs;

We are talking about four things:

- Creating a better international (not national) detection system,
- Creating a new standardized international warning system,
- Promoting the idea of prevention and planning for these disasters,
- Encouraging humanitarian aid in the event of a disaster.

The vast majority of the comments against this resolution fail to recognize that this resolution is much more than dropping some buoys in the water. In fact, opponents to this resolution haven't demonstrated any understanding of just how CHEAP the detection system is. Super Bowl ads cost more than a similar real-life system would cost!


But more important is the idea that a standardized warning system is used. Anybody who has traveled to an exotic country will understand that sometimes communication can be a hazard to traveling, and this includes not knowing what to do in case of an emergency.

Wiki has a great picture of a tsunami warning sign used in the US. Imagine what it would be like if we used a standard sign of a person running up a hill or tree from a big wave? People wouldn't have to speak a language, but if a siren were to sound, might seek higher ground.

The number of reports of how many people died because they walked *out* to the ocean instead of climbing onto a roof is tragic. What happened is part the fault of not being prepared ... and who would have thought that this would happen in the Indian Ocean? The last time this happened there was in 1896 with Krakotoa (sp?) -- and 30,000+ died (which in the 1800s was a huge death toll).

The second thing I've highlighted also mentions a TEWC. We are spending so much time talking about "billions" and "tremendous" costs from players that I honestly think haven't read the FAQs at the beginning of this thread, let alone any of the newspapers on the real life Tsunami, that we've neglected a major part of this resolution.

The idea behind a TEWC (Tsunamie Emergency Warning Center) is to reduce the duplication of efforts.

If I'm working to find a cure for cancer, and if you are working to find a cure for cancer, and if another 30,000 UN scientists are working to find a cure for cancer, doesn't it make economic sense to work together?

The goal here is to save lives ... no different than medical research really. The natural disasters don't stop at national borders, so why should we?

The idea behind the TEWC is that if nations work together, those that are capitalizts and have powerful economies (like my nation) can easily cover the little guys. :)

Why would I want to do this? Because some help is better than no help. Because my citizens travel to little guy countries on their honeymoons and my government has an obligation to protect its citizens abroad as well. Because my citizens are much nicer than me, and told me we can practice prevention or humanitarian relief ... so knowing that an once of prevention is worth a pound of treatment, I'd rather pay an once to save a pound.

Finally ... working together is the point behind a United Nations. If I didn't want to exchange ideas with other nations, I'd leave the UN. Do I really need the UN telling me how to run my houses of ill repute? No. Do I really need the UN telling me how many trees to plant on my mountains? Not really. But my government shells out big time money to the UN, because every now and then somebody says something so crazy that it actually has use in my government.

I think working together we'll save money and lives. It makes $en$e to my government, and any chance to save some Spice Melange is something any good capitalizt nation will jump at.

Thousands of people are starving and dying, and you want to send insurance agents to rescue them?

A possible misunderstanding here we were refering to the research and maintainence progamme. We would be alarmed if the supporters of this resolution were reduced to cheap jibes to support their case.

If it passes in this form it would be satisfactory to the majority of the nations, wouldn't you agree?

Oh dear, the important word "more" before satisfactory seems to have been missed.

Moving swiftly on to the points discussed by the Mikivity representative, we are fully aware that military budgets in many nations are spent on firefighters, coastguard, police and other important rescue services.

Our point is that the funding should not all come from national military budgets, interested parties such as the insurance industry, holiday companies and others affected by a future disaster should contribute the lions share of the research and maintainence budget. The private sector having a fiscal interest will encourage speedier research and development, tying this important resolution entirely to military budgets that are controlled by civil servants puts the whole project at risk of a massive overspend in budget and possible failiure.

We support the development of warning systems but these can be done within world locations who can freely exchange data. More importantly nations outside the UN may refuse to share essential information that they would usually be communicated within that location.

Passing this resolution changes the economy of every member nation, it should be enough that we are more aware of the dangers of Tsunamis. The previously ignorant nations have unfortunatly been alerted. Responsible nations already have as many necessary preperations in place as possible.

So we say share information but please do not force nations to increase their military budgets against the will of their people.

The authors of this proposal have worked extremely hard on their project and we acknowledge the issue was rightly brought to this forum, their skills have been enhanced by their project. Now we ask have they the wisdom to withdraw their proposal and allow further augmentation of their concept.

A possible misunderstanding here we were refering to the research and maintainence progamme. We would be alarmed if the supporters of this resolution were reduced to cheap jibes to support their case.


This also requires support for the rescue services in the case of a tsunami hitting a nation. Which is where the police and military budget comes from. It was not a cheap jibe, but a serious point - if you don't increase your military and police budgets, how are you going to deal with the after effects of a huge wave of water sweeping over your nation? Cause - despite the sarcasm - I think the police and military are better able to deal with such a crisis than insurance workers.


Oh dear, the important word "more" before satisfactory seems to have been missed.


Fine - if this passes in it's current form, would you agree it will be more satisfactory to a majority of the nations?

I don't get the difference - if it passes by a majority in this state, then clearly all the nations who could be bothered voting don't find any problem large enough to prevent them voting.

)edit(

However - I have no desire to detract from the debate with a flame war, or other petty insults. So if I did cause offence, or I gave the impression I am not taking this debate seriously, I apologise.

)/edit(

With all of the additional discussion since my last post, it makes more sense to post this link of a new news article on Yahoo here. (It deals with new legislation in the RL US Congress to fund the upgrade and expansion of the tsunami warning system operated by the RL US. The cost -- under $40 million. )

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=3&u=/nm/20050124/pl_nm/quake_usa_dc

We agree there should never be a “flame war” during a debate and of course the military and emergency services are the people who pick up the pieces after any disaster. With a warning system in place lives could be saved we agree, but how long can the emergency services be expected to support the survivors?

The next stage is to assess the damage, pay for repairs and rebuild lives who funds this?

Insurance companies and Aid agencies therefore both should be involved in the development of the warning systems so that the former can be assured of the risk and the latter know where the highest risks exist.

We also draw the attention to all member states that.

All RL resolutions directed towards similar projects are non binding. All NS UN resolutions are entirely binding to member states. Giving carte blanche to one resolution of this nature endangers freedom to all nations that is why in RL they are non binding and the funding is not specific.

We think this tsunami warning system should be great. Even though it could be expensive, progress usually is. But really, I' sure we can swing the price. I hope we can pass this resolution and have the new system put in place. My nation being in the north pacific, may one day have to rely on this system to ensure safety for my people. I of course can understand why some are hesitant about this issue.

This tsunami warning system sounds great, but what insurance does my nation and region have that the buoys, sonar, and seismic devices installed off of our coastline will not be used for intelligence purposes? Especially since this information will be available to all participating nations.

------------------------------------------------------------
the Republic of The Chosen Souls respectfully wishes to have
this matter investigated further. discussed further.

yes, tsunamis can be a great threat.
yes, the consequences of a large tsunami are tremenous.

but, after discussing this issue with our various counsels, it
is our conclusion to allow any and all nations to freely install
monitoring stations in and around our national waters could be
interpreted as an intrusion on our soverengty. taken further,
it could be viewed as a threat to ones own national security.

we wish to be cautious in this regard as we would be
cautious on this matter with other nations.

it is our belief that in the haste to set up such a system all for
good and noble causes, there is a surreptitious side to this issue
that no one has addressed. and this is what concerns us greatly.
and we wish to tread into this issue carefully.

is it the information regarding tsunamis the only issue here
or is there to be equipment unilaterally decided to be used?

what technology is to be used? who decides what it will be?
how will this all be funded? do we form a Tsunami Warning
Commission? who heads it? can it be manned by local
technicians or does there have to be people from the outside
manning the equipment? how extensive is the network to be?
and what sort of operating system is to be used?

can the funding of such a project for a nation allow that
nation to decide on their own what equipment and protocols
to be used or is this to be decided not by them?

we have many questions, but also seek resolution amoungst
our fellow nations. we respectfully await your responses.

Dosset Asha - Counsel of Counsels
------------------------------------------------------------

Moving swiftly on to the points discussed by the Mikivity representative, we are fully aware that military budgets in many nations are spent on firefighters, coastguard, police and other important rescue services.


OOC: Two quick points, there is no nation Mikivity. Second, let's talk a bit about how NationStates the game works (rules and all) ...


Our point is that the funding should not all come from national military budgets, interested parties such as the insurance industry, holiday companies and others affected by a future disaster should contribute the lions share of the research and maintainence budget.


I see no such reason that private industries should be *directly* responsible, when governments have the ability to tax citizens, property owners, or businesses and then use those funds in police and emergency response budgets.

[OOC: The game does not have insurnace industries or holiday companies built in a way that a UN resolution would be possible. Seriously, read the sticky at the top of this forum entitled: "Before you submit a proposal". Proposals must fit the guidelines suggested by Cogitation and Enodia and the other moderators.]


We support the development of warning systems but these can be done within world locations who can freely exchange data. More importantly nations outside the UN may refuse to share essential information that they would usually be communicated within that location.


Nations outside the UN naturally are free to join or not as they please. Again, the UN can't force its will on non-UN members. For a nation to even suggest that via a proposal could result in that nation being ejected from the UN.

[OOC: This again is another game rule. NationStates isn't like the real world UN where the UN could condemn or commend any nation or even pressure other nations.]


Passing this resolution changes the economy of every member nation, it should be enough that we are more aware of the dangers of Tsunamis. The previously ignorant nations have unfortunatly been alerted. Responsible nations already have as many necessary preperations in place as possible.


This isn't about ignorance vs. awareness, but about collaboration.

Economics has a concept that any good capitalizt nation should understand: economies of scale.

Let's say that I run a company that makes widgets. Now we do a bit of marketing and find out that we might be able to sell X number of widgets at Y cost. However, our industrial engineers tell us that if we make X+10 widgets, we'll only sell Y-1 widgets if we keep the price of the widgets fixed. These engineers also tell us that the reason we can do this, is because we can buy a larger widget making factory, which might cost more, but will cost LESS to operate.

Economies of Scale is basically a Econ 101 concept that says, that says that some processes are actually cheaper per unit (emphasis on per unit) when production is increased.

In the real world you see this with toys, tennis shoes, shirts, tools, electronics, and even automobiles.

And again, any capitalizt nation such as mine has already done the math and realized that by asking the UN to head a single agency, a Tsunami Emergency Warning Center (TEWC), that the duplication that currently exists can be cut out. Essentially costs will go gone, which will then allow us to invest additional resources into expanding the network into protecting developing nations.

Why would my government want to do this when it is landlocked? First, Mikitivity (and perhaps even the imaginary Mikivity citizens -- though I know not who they'd be) travel. My landlocked nation contributing data and funds to this center (very minor funds at that) will be protecting Mikitivity residents and our neighbors.

Second, Mikitivity is a steel, beer, and Spice Melange exporter. Though we have no objects to selling these goods to the undead, corpses traditionally have nothing of value to exchange for these goods. Living people do.

A global market that is healthy and safe is a good consumer base. It is naturally in the financial interest of my government to use our tax base to secure stablity in the global market, which fortunately means my nation's economy does well, giving my government more tax revenue! Win-Win!


So we say share information but please do not force nations to increase their military budgets against the will of their people.


Police and emergency response budgets. Did you not read the resolution? It specifically included language designed to prevent rogue nations from simply sending the TEWC bullets and bombs.


The authors of this proposal have worked extremely hard on their project and we acknowledge the issue was rightly brought to this forum, their skills have been enhanced by their project. Now we ask have they the wisdom to withdraw their proposal and allow further augmentation of their concept.

OOC: Do you realize it is impossible to withdrawl a resolution once it hits the floor? Now I personally disagree with you and wouldn't do it if I could. I think your logic is incorrect, as in the real-world these types of centers (be it the Pacific Tsunami group or organizations like NOAA which track Hurricanes) are to my knowledge always funded via government budgets. Here is why I think your idea of privatization of a government project is unwise at best ... not all governments are capitalizt nations ... some are socialists, which believe in big governments and frown upon placing the publics health in privatized hands. Even if the governments were to have some degree of control over the decisions of a TEWC, it is key to socialist nations and even democratic-socialists like France, that the power of funding and decision making lie in the hands of democracy that is directly responsible to the public for which it protects. Even the United States and Japan (to extremely capitalist nations) agree with this, which is why we've seen President Bush fork over another $30 million to bring DART up to 31 stations, and why a US White House that dislikes the UN is actually receptive to the idea of greater UN involvement.

The United Nations in the real world *and* in our decision making in this fantasy really is a win-win situation. Socialists have a government organization responsible to their needs and not stock holders helping them. Capitalist nations have a government organization that is a cooperative effort and more effecient because its work is not being divided into meaningless / small sub-groups.

There is a very good reason why the United States recently combined the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with the National Marine and Wildlife Service into a new group called "NOAA-Fisheries". The US realized that the two groups were working together and that by combining the two research would be streamlined.

(Remember, in real life I am an environmental engineer / registered civil engineer, and I have worked with many atmospheric scientists in addition to biologists on a number of projects, most notably issues related to saving salmon populations ... and I've watched first hand the creation of NOAA-Fisheries.)

I compliament you on thinking outside of the box, but I really and truely think this resolution is a slam dunk idea and I think it is cool that NationStates will be *ahead* of the real world. I think there are a few other resolutions that actually will take hold in the real world too, but this one is going to be a reality in the next few years, and I honestly don't think this game has beat the real world on something like this before.

I'd like to add that prior to Dec. 26, I wrote a resolution titled "Tracking Near Earth Objects" which also dealt with the value of exchanging information and bringing nations together. Since that time I also drafted the "Good Samaritan Laws" resolution, which again was focused on disaster relief (not prevention). This resolution represents a joining of those two topics: disaster relief *after* the implementation of prevention programs on a global scale. The Epidemic Prevention Protocol (one of my favorite resolutions) did this already with respect to diesase control ... and logic would dictate that other fields should do the same. In several resolutions the International Red Cross has been revitalized and I honestly hope to make it a more active roleplaying tool for NationStates players. This resolution will add to the roleplay environment as well. Now a player can ping a TEWC to have a tsunami warning pushed out to other nations, and can take advantage of the final clauses bringing the IRCO and humanitarian aid to bear. However, when I was working on the Good Samaritan Laws resolution, my original draft had 1/3 of the content removed. Those seconds were about long-term disaster assistance. I had planned to after that work on some additiona disaster prevention resolutions ... I feel they are appropriate for the game and bring an acute awareness to players. In short, I had originally planned to deal with a hurricane tracking center, since those are very predictable and impact multiple nations, on the same economies of scale argument. There is no real world reason that Mexico, Cuba, and the rest of the Carribbean nations shouldn't ask the United States to provide them information from Storm Tracks. And there is no reason the United States shouldn't provide that information to those governments when it has it and for FREE. Nations working together build stronger economic ties, and in doing so improve the quality of life for all. The reason I'm not doing a hurricane tracking center instead of this, is Tejasdom and real life gave us a wake up call. If I had talked the others into tabling this idea people would be outraged that I would be talking about hurricanes instead of tsunamis. So I'll let the people have this issue first -- though I think we've done a great job here.

Furthermore, I've slowly been planting the seeds for a United Nations Uniform Building Code (another thing that makes civil engineers water at the mouth). ;) The problem with a UN-UBC is that, even though we are all on the Metric system via the Metric System resolution, there are so many technical details that I never want to blow people out of the water by doing the right thing ... and regionalizing a UBC. Earthquake resistant structures do not always need to have load bearing roofs. An alpine struture needs a strong roof, but is in very little danger of peak ground accelerations. To advocate that all buildings are built for any environment is not economic and thus goes against the number one rule of engineering: Don't Over Engineer.

There are many things we could do, but I honestly and truely think that the 3.5 weeks that GS, Groot, Tejasdom, myself, and others spent working on this here in this forum and via email exchanges is a terrific product that follows all of the NationStates rules ... it does put me on the defensive to see a new player tell us how he / she thinks the rules shoudl be, when we've been zapped by the before. :(

A Tsunami warning system is useless. These waves travel at over 500mph, and most major faults are at the coast, maybe 30minutes to hit the coast, no way of evacuating people, or even warning people sufficently.

There is also no way to predict earthquakes, hence no way to predict a tsunami.

While I commend you for still defending the resolution, I think it's now a moot point as it is winning by nearly seven thousand votes and the chance of it not passing is extreamly unlikely. On top of this, if the cost is only in the millions, that's chump change in the extream to the UN. I doubt my nation is in the top one-hundred richest nations in the UN and as King, I could use that as toilet paper. It won't affect my nation at all, but I still belive it's better to have it on the books than to not have it.

Cabinia, let's look at numbered clauses 2 and 3 of the resolution:

Quote:
2. REQUESTS member nations to forward seismic data already being collected to the TEWC to aid in its research and monitoring program;

3. SUGGESTS that governments that do not have seismic networks work with the TEWC and other nations in order to enhance existing seismic monitoring and planetary and oceanography programs (which can be considered linked to police and emergency response budgets for the purposes of NationStates);


Both clauses clearly recognize the existence of existing data collection programs and warning systems, and propose that the data and other systems be utilized as part of an overall global program involved shared information, technology and resources. I believe that addresses your first complaint.


Okay, so you're not proposing to install a redundant system in the Caribbean. What you're proposing instead is to forward Cabinia's alerts to a central UN command center, which will forward those alerts to the affected nations.

Again, redundant. Cabinia must be already monitoring them in their own command center in order for the TEWC to receive the alerts (which is indeed the case). Forwarding messages to a second command center for dissemination adds extra administrative overhead (and associated delays) and human/technological points of failure that are unnecessary. Cabinia is perfectly capable of disseminating information from its own command center. TEWC is redundant and counterproductive.

All the argument in here so far focuses on the low cost, without even considering the fact that for that low cost you receive a system which works less efficiently than those already in place.

Okay, so you're not proposing to install a redundant system in the Caribbean. What you're proposing instead is to forward Cabinia's alerts to a central UN command center, which will forward those alerts to the affected nations.

Again, redundant. Cabinia must be already monitoring them in their own command center in order for the TEWC to receive the alerts (which is indeed the case). Forwarding messages to a second command center for dissemination adds extra administrative overhead (and associated delays) and human/technological points of failure that are unnecessary. Cabinia is perfectly capable of disseminating information from its own command center. TEWC is redundant and counterproductive.

It is only redundant for nations that wish to maintain their own systems.

The way seismic data works is the various waves are either detected after passing through the earth (ground) or after an earthquake, on nation calls another nation / central location.

The way stage data works is it is remotely collected and then transmitted via satellite (or house elves if you believe in Harry Potter) to a central data base.

There is no reason why a government can't get an independent stream of data, if it so chooses. But the real reason for the decision making to be in a central authority is to keep it neutral.

Let's say that your government hates my government ... so much so that when your government sees a tsunami that is reasonably can project will also hit my nation, your data center decides to simply not warn my country. 10,000s die ... and why? Because my flag is blue and yours is red? Silliness, but a very realistic possibility.

Furthermore, if you are a capitalist nation, and it sounds like you might not be since you have dismissed (i.e. not responded to) my economic arguments ... then you will know that markets often extend beyond national boarders. My government has a vested interest in protecting its overseas consumer markets.

Again, let's just say my government sets up the system, but another government, say a dictatorship, mistrusts my government so much that when my government calls and says, "Dude, there is a huge tsunami heading towards your capital. We think it will hit you in about 2 hours. Please evacuate your civilian popluations ... especially those that like to drink Spice Tremens!" chances are that even if we would know who to contact, that this hostile nation might see this as a false alarm on my government's part.

Again, the idea behind a TEWC is to have a neutral / central location to process the data and base its decisions on Science, not Politics. We all can agree to that: socialists, capitalists, and whatnot.

Okay, so you're not proposing to install a redundant system in the Caribbean. What you're proposing instead is to forward Cabinia's alerts to a central UN command center, which will forward those alerts to the affected nations.


So that there is no misunderstanding, it wouldn't be the alerts that would be forwarded to the TEWC, but the raw data collected from the bouys and sensors, both in the oceans and on land. The TEWC would have the hardware capacity, the necessary software, modeling, and the technical experts to analyze the data as it came in, and originate the warnings. Thats how there would be no duplication of data collection or analysis.

Also - if your readings lead you to believe you are about to be hit, then you would issue an alert for your nation. But it would be somewhat unlikely that your nation would be the only one hit - so you could forward the warnings to the central command, and they could warn other nations. Which has the potential to save a lot of lives.

PRCC opposes the resolution on the grounds that it would be far too expensive a measure for the protection of a few miserable peasants.

(I would like to add that this does not reflect my real life view regarding the Tsuanimi in SE Asia, and the victims so tragically lost)

PRCC opposes the resolution on the grounds that it would be far too expensive a measure for the protection of a few miserable peasants.

(I would like to add that this does not reflect my real life view regarding the Tsuanimi in SE Asia, and the victims so tragically lost)

And if the tidal wave gets bigger and comes further inland? Just how far inland would it have to come to hit your office? (Just curious!).

And - also - what if you, yourself, are on holiday in TilEnca and we get hit by a tidal wave? Do you want to be left stranded on the coast, with no warning? Or would you prefer our people to evacuate you with the best information we have to offer?

This has no bearing on the resolution, but I figured those interested in this subject might find this interesting:

http://homepage.mac.com/demark/tsunami/2.html

Go through the series of photos. I found #7 and the shadows very interesting.

I couldve sworn you weren't supposed to make resolutions based on real events. :confused:

I couldve sworn you weren't supposed to make resolutions based on real events. :confused:

Not exactly. You can't reference real life thing in resolutions, because they don't exist. But this proposal does not mention any real life events. It just mentions tsunami, which can happen in nationstates as well as in the real world.

All resolutions will be based on real life things - genocide, prostitution, pedophillia - all of these exist in both worlds. But you can't REFERENCE the real world in a resolution - that's the only limit :}

But you can't REFERENCE the real world in a resolution - that's the only limit :}

Actually, you're not even supposed to be able to reference the real world in forum debate, a rule the mods haven't really been cracking down on.

Actually, you're not even supposed to be able to reference the real world in forum debate, a rule the mods haven't really been cracking down on.

(OOC)
Hold on. If the forum is not supposed to be totally in character (which I am sure I read somewhere) what are we going to refer to?

Eh.

It is only redundant for nations that wish to maintain their own systems.

Incorrect. It would be redundant for nations that wish to maintain there own systems, and the people who could benefit from sharing info from that system. Collectively, that represents most of the world.

The way stage data works is it is remotely collected and then transmitted via satellite (or house elves if you believe in Harry Potter) to a central data base.
So that there is no misunderstanding, it wouldn't be the alerts that would be forwarded to the TEWC, but the raw data collected from the bouys and sensors, both in the oceans and on land. The TEWC would have the hardware capacity, the necessary software, modeling, and the technical experts to analyze the data as it came in, and originate the warnings. Thats how there would be no duplication of data collection or analysis.

Another point of redundancy. Cabinia has no intention of sharing raw data, because our buoys have purposes other than seismic monitoring. Cabinia's central system has to filter the raw data before it can be retransmitted to other nations. Since we're filtering it anyway, and since we then process it for our own seismological benefits, it only makes sense to send the processed data. And why bother sending processed data, when the only thing anybody really cares about are the alerts? Why bother transmitting alert data, when we can just run automatic scripts sending emails to major media outlets and pages/text messages to world leaders? Notification would be instantaneous.

Cabinia is going to know of an event that poses a threat at the same time TEWC would, under this model. We can operate a phone just as easily as TEWC can. All we need is agreements with the other nations and a list of who to call. It's a simple problem with a simple solution.

You say there would be no duplication of analysis, but that seems to imply that all UN nations will simply abandon the pursuit of the science of underwater seismology and tidal/current monitoring for knowledge's sake. We don't think that's a realistic expectation. Quite silly, actually.

Let's say that your government hates my government ... so much so that when your government sees a tsunami that is reasonably can project will also hit my nation, your data center decides to simply not warn my country. 10,000s die ... and why? Because my flag is blue and yours is red? Silliness, but a very realistic possibility.

You don't think this would be an international incident on the order of a nuclear attack? Especially with an international agreement already in place?

Furthermore, if you are a capitalist nation, and it sounds like you might not be since you have dismissed (i.e. not responded to) my economic arguments ... then you will know that markets often extend beyond national boarders. My government has a vested interest in protecting its overseas consumer markets.

Straw man. I'm not addressing your economic concerns because I find nothing to criticize in the financial aspects. My argument is that the UN shouldn't be legislating something that can be handled more efficiently at a regional level. It's not about cost, it's about having a system that makes sense. We understand that centralized planning leads to mismanagement and waste, and that the UN wastes so much money that this little sum would hardly be noticed. The fact that we are talking about spending money isn't as important as the fact that we're spending it for no noticeable gain.

And yes, Cabinia is capitalist. Very. And you'll find that I've not ignored your economic argument, but have in fact conceded the point. More than once.

Again, the idea behind a TEWC is to have a neutral / central location to process the data and base its decisions on Science, not Politics. We all can agree to that: socialists, capitalists, and whatnot.

Paranoia? That's the best reason for installing this thing? Certainly we can do better than that.

Actually, you're not even supposed to be able to reference the real world in forum debate, a rule the mods haven't really been cracking down on.

In the year that I've been active in this UN forum, I've not once seen a mod say that we aren't allow to reference the real world in forum debate. Not once.

I think you are mistaken here.

It sounds to me as though this is some petty attempt to get players banned because they've *gasp* actually invested a bit of time into researching something and then presenting it here: (1) as a resolution that while devoid of real life examples in its text actually has (2) some relevance by pointing to a series of real-world EXAMPLES (notice I use the word 'examples') in response to debate questions, many of which are *gasp* also based on real-world concepts and examples.

If a nation wishes to maintain or construct their own systems in addition to this, then there is nothing in the resolution that would prevent them from doing so.

It's no different by analogy that an political entity that maintains a system of primary and secondary schools for the children who reside in that territory. The taxpayers support the system with taxes. If a parent who is a taxpayer elects to enroll his children in a private school, and pay the tuition and fees so the child is educated in a private, rather than a public, school, that is their choice. They would still have their obligation as taxpayers towards the financing of the public schools in the territory.

In the year that I've been active in this UN forum, I've not once seen a mod say that we aren't allow to reference the real world in forum debate. Not once.

I think you are mistaken here.

It sounds to me as though this is some petty attempt to get players banned because they've *gasp* actually invested a bit of time into researching something and then presenting it here: (1) as a resolution that while devoid of real life examples in its text actually has (2) some relevance by pointing to a series of real-world EXAMPLES (notice I use the word 'examples') in response to debate questions, many of which are *gasp* also based on real-world concepts and examples.

I think it came from a misunderstanding on the first page of this debate - someone was trying to imply the whole proposal was a dig at George Bush and Tony Blair, and was suggesting the debate, rather than the proposal, could not use real world references. An edit by Cogitation seemed to imply the same thing - that you can not use real world stuff in a thread, but I think it was taken out of context and I think Cogitation was actually only talking about proposals.

Anyways :}

Cabinia has no intention of sharing raw data, because our buoys have purposes other than seismic monitoring. Cabinia's central system has to filter the raw data before it can be retransmitted to other nations.

What other purposes could they have that is so sensitive???

As for needing to filter the raw data before it can be transmitted, split the data streams. It is trival to do (for my level of technology). Tell ya what, my government will give you the technology capable of doing this.

Seismic waves travel through the Earth. The sensors to record them can either be UN operated or domestically operated. You can strip what you want from the data and transmit what you want onto the TEWC. Buoys record stage, other water surface related parameters, and can even be used to record some boundary layer meterological data such as air temperature, humidity, and radiation fluxes (which don't matter for tsunamis).

I'm honestly not sure if buoys can record seismic waves, as I'd need to refresh myself on what happens to things like P-waves and S-waves when they travel through water. In any case, I really don't see what sort of "sensitivity" or "top secret" information one can gain from seismic data, because the earth will transmit though waves through the ground and to other sensors.

Wiki has the following for the faster P-waves:

Typical speeds are 330 m/s in air, 1450 m/s in water and about 5000 m/s in granite.

Amazingly, the waves are damped in water and air. So a buoy to detect a P-wave is probably not really a good idea. (I'll talk more about buoys in a minute.)

First, I think it worth talking about seismic waves a bit more here ...

We know that P-waves and S-waves travel at different rates. Using this we only need three instruments to locate (not just detect) an earthquake.

One seismic instrument will tell you how far away an Earthquake was. A second instrument will tell you the same thing. But neither instrument tells you *where*. They both just give you two circles. The third instrument tells you by giving you a third radius:

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/seismic-waves.html

Now how does this matter with respect to tsunami. Earthquakes are one of the more common causes of tsunami, and even though I just said we only need one instrument to detect an earthquake, and three instruments to location and earthquake, the time it takes the S-waves and P-waves to travel through the Earth is fairly fast. However, for issuing a warning, the faster we can detect and locate the epicenter of an earthquake, the more lead time we can give to governments.

Furthermore, just because we've located an epicenter, does not mean that a significant amount of water was displaced. A tsunami is created by the displacement of water. This is where buoys are used. If an earthquake is located, that sends the TEWC a possible warning ... it is called an "event" at this point in time. The question that remains to be answered is, "Is this event significant or not?"

If water was displaced, it will travel at various rates (I've seen 500 to 1,000 km/h quoted on Wiki and 400 m/h on various US sites) as a surface (non-tidal) wave. As the water moves from the location of displacement it will eventually pass a network of buoys *or* a populated island.

Now, normally the tides in the ocean are governed by astronomical gravitational forces, such as the sun and moon. We have excellent predictive capability to forecast in advance what the tide should be minus any atmospheric and displacement based changes. Furthermore, using time series models we can account for real-time atmospheric changes in our forecast, via a tool like a ARMA (x,x) model. For example, in the ocean, if you know what the pressure is right now, and what it was for the past day, you can accurately forecast what it will be in the next hour or two. Using an astronomical forecast stage adjusted for atmospheric real-time events, we know what the ocean water level should be with an incredible degree of accuracy. And knowing the epicenter our buoy knows when the tsunami event should come by and raise or lower our buoy relative to where it should have been. If the buoy isn't where we think it should be, we've found a tsunami and now know exactly *how* much water was displaced. If the buoy is exactly where we expected it to be when we think the event should pass, we've also just saved money, because we can rule out a seismic based false positive (in Hawaii one of these rulings was estimated to save $68 million once).

The trick is that the network of both seismic and stage instruments can only give warnings in the speed at which the waves travel *past* existing instruments. We actually need instruments close to the sources of these displacements. Having an instrument in the territorial waters of one nation (especially if it is located in a seismically inactive zone) is not that useful. Not a complete waste, but not that useful either.

The point behind having the UN get involved is to remove abuse and mistrust ... and anybody who is going to claim that a floating seismic instrument is better than a ground based one is talking about a set of physics that I just don't think really exists. Furthermore, it isn't like seismic data is top secret. Let's pretend you don't want nations knowing you are testing nukes underground. I can pop *three* seismic sensors in my country and find out about your test just as easily as you can. It might take me a bit longer to get the news, but you aren't hiding anything from anybody. But by working together we can reduce the turn around time, and move information from an instrument instantly to a satellite and then to a processing center ... that center can then push a notificiation to other sensors to basically triangulate the epicenter and pick up the sampling rate of the second part of our network. The buoys now waking up, will scream the instant they notice something, and international waters being deep and mysterious, these sentries will give UN members they warning time they may need or they could just as likely give the all clear signal, which is just as important.


{OOC: Not really related to the subject at hand ... but kinda interesting ...

My folk's next door neighbor served in the South Pacific on a troop carrier during the Second World War. Three times a day he was required to collect water surface temperature data and in the middle of the war. It turns out that when I went to grad school and worked on my MS Thesis, that I ended up using NOAA data dating back to the 1900s, including data that the US military gave to NOAA from the war. The two of us would joke that he collected data that I used when working on forecasting drought risk in California. Kinda cool when you think about it. He was collecting data for a kid who's parents weren't even born yet!

My point is the military can very easily stream data collected from ships and keep whatever it wants. Data streams are easily separated, because they are recorded separately. Of course this is NationStates, so you may disagree with me. But that won't stop me from asserting that seismic data or water surface data is of national security interests and should be closely guarded.}


And yes, Cabinia is capitalist. Very. And you'll find that I've not ignored your economic argument, but have in fact conceded the point. More than once.


Where? I'm sorry, I must have honestly missed that. :/

I think it came from a misunderstanding on the first page of this debate - someone was trying to imply the whole proposal was a dig at George Bush and Tony Blair, and was suggesting the debate, rather than the proposal, could not use real world references. An edit by Cogitation seemed to imply the same thing - that you can not use real world stuff in a thread, but I think it was taken out of context and I think Cogitation was actually only talking about proposals.

Anyways :}

Is Cog posting as a puppet, 'cause I've not seen a Cog post on page 1 or 2 of this thread. :/ Actual resolutions can not make real world references. This is a rule that they started closely enforcing after the Needle Sharing Prevention resolution. Prior to that, you could sneak things -- like references, by. But that ruling was never meant to censor debate and using examples here to prove a point.


Anyways, for this particular issue, Bush is kinda somebody who's policy agrees with mine (that is rare). He has asked NOAA to upscale the scope of NOAA's tsunami detection efforts. :)

I was thinking we've had the debate "Can we talk about the real-world?" before ... this is what I dug up:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6640555&postcount=16

Edit: the above was a reference from July, when that rule applied. In October that rule was changed:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=358761

Bottom line, UN resolutions can not include real world references. I think that rule never was meant to say that we can not use them as examples in discussion / debate, but that the resolution itself needs to be clear of proper nouns and things. In this case I honestly think we are in the clear. To be fair here, this resolution did not sneak up on the moderators. It sat in the queue for several days before reaching the UN floor -- giving them and players a chance to challenge it then.

Is Cog posting as a puppet, 'cause I've not seen a Cog post on page 1 or 2 of this thread. :/ Actual resolutions can not make real world references. This is a rule that they started closely enforcing after the Needle Sharing Prevention resolution. Prior to that, you could sneak things -- like references, by. But that ruling was never meant to censor debate and using examples here to prove a point.


Anyways, for this particular issue, Bush is kinda somebody who's policy agrees with mine (that is rare). He has asked NOAA to upscale the scope of NOAA's tsunami detection efforts. :)

It was done as a mod-edit in this : http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8012358&postcount=8

As a landlocked nation, The Free Land of Wetback couldn't care less about Tsunamis. We feel that regardless of whether or not a tsunami warning system is a good idea or not, it is not something which should be forced upon any country. This should be an entirely voluntary project. What can Wetback or the thousands of other completely landlocked countries bring to this project besides our ciitzens hard earned money? If this ridiculously assinine resolution passes (and this seems quite likely) consider Wetback a former member of the United Nations. The United Nations is supposed to be about cooperation and rational decision making not knee-jerk emotional reactions to catastrophes. This resolution if it passes is a step by the UN towards tyranny.
Forming such a system is not the United nationes responsibility nor should it be. However Wetback is not against sending aid to nations hit by such tragedies.

It was done as a mod-edit in this : http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8012358&postcount=8

Ah, I missed that edit, but it came from the "Before you make a proposal ..." sticky. I'm pretty sure Cog is talking about proposals, not forum debates.

That said, I'll make sure to post in moderation later this morning and get a more specific ruling, since it seems that when cut and paste outside of the context of the proposal guidelines that this could be taken to include debate as well.

Official Message from the Kingdom of Magnorama:

We don't need a resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.
We really could use all our money better than to warn people about tsunamis which happen every century once...
So we oppose the resolution, as we don't see the use of the money spent.

Official Message from the Kingdom of Magnorama:

We don't need a resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.
We really could use all our money better than to warn people about tsunamis which happen every century once...
So we oppose the resolution, as we don't see the use of the money spent.

Dear Kingdom of Magnorama,

My government would like to know what you consider "once a century" in light of the following taken from the FAQ:

Q: How frequent are real-life tsunamis?

This is a complicated question, in part, because historical tsunami records are not that long. A nice list of significant tsunamis was published by CNN on Dec. 27, 2004:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiap...e.ap/index.html

Here is a quick summary of that article:

Dec 26, 2004 > Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand :: 200,000+ killed
Jul 17, 1998 > Papua-New Guinea :: 2,000 people killed
Aug 16, 1976 > Philippines :: 5,000 killed
Mar 28, 1964 > Alaska, Oregon, and California :: 124 killed
May 22 1960 > Chile, Hawaii, Japan, the Philippines :: thousands killed
Apr 1, 1946 > Alaska, Hawaii :: 164 killed
Jan 31, 1906 > Ecuador and Columbia :: 500 to 1,500 killed
Dec 17, 1896 > California :: property damage only
Aug 27, 1883 > Indonesia (Krakatoa) :: 36,000 killed
Nov 1, 1775 > Portugal, Spain, Morocco :: unknown
Jul 21, 365 > Egypt :: thousands killed

These are just the events from one survey, but are all considered significant. A google search will turn up many other references to other events. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami
http://www.mapsofworld.com/tsunami/...l-tsunamis.html

The United Socialist States of Gonzorica agree with the proposal except the

- 10. ASKS that member nations work with the International Red Cross Organization to coordinate international tsunami relief efforts.


http://www.give.org/reports/arc.asp

The Following is a link from Give.Org where they disclose some of the monetary impacts ARC has. As you can see international is not a huge factor in it's contributions. The United Socialist States of Gonzorica do not think the ARC or IRC are equipped to spearhead these efforts. The United Socialist States of Gonzorica suggest UNICEF as the base charitable operation to spearhead any Tsunami diaster due to their knowledge and experience in foreign lands.

The United Socialist States of Gonzorica will not endorse this propasal until these issues have been addressed.

The United Socialist States of Gonzorica agree with the proposal except the

- 10. ASKS that member nations work with the International Red Cross Organization to coordinate international tsunami relief efforts.


http://www.give.org/reports/arc.asp

The Following is a link from Give.Org where they disclose some of the monetary impacts ARC has. As you can see international is not a huge factor in it's contributions. The United Socialist States of Gonzorica do not think the ARC or IRC are equipped to spearhead these efforts. The United Socialist States of Gonzorica suggest UNICEF as the base charitable operation to spearhead any Tsunami diaster due to their knowledge and experience in foreign lands.

The United Socialist States of Gonzorica will not endorse this propasal until these issues have been addressed.


It means the IRCO within the game. The actual IRCO (and ARC and UNICEF) don't exist within NS, so they can't be used :}

As a follow-up, here is the NS UN resolution that created the International Red Cross Organization within NS:

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #29
The IRCO

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Los chingados

Description: This legislation would hereby implement the International Red Cross Organization, an organization whose sole duty is to provide support for all the nations under UN rule. It functions as a non-profit organization and is run purely on donations and grants to prevent the corruption of government from interfering with its main goal to provide food, shelter, and humanitarian aid to those in need. They would be the first response team to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and any other events which threaten the lives of citizens. May it be so that the interests of all the citizens in the free world be protected by such a humanitarian group such as the IRCO.

Votes For: 11,835
Votes Against: 1,600

Implemented: Mon Sep 1 2003

It means the IRCO within the game. The actual IRCO (and ARC and UNICEF) don't exist within NS, so they can't be used :}

The IRCO in the game is supposed to be reflective of the real world, right?

The United Socialist States of Gonzorica still believe that if the IRCO in NS is reflective of our current world society (Just like Tsunami's are currently relative) that these issues still need to be addressed . If NS UNiCEF does not exist it should.

The IRCO in the game is supposed to be reflective of the real world, right?

The United Socialist States of Gonzorica still believe that if the IRCO in NS is reflective of our current world society (Just like Tsunami's are currently relative)
that these issues still need to be addressed . If NS UNiCEF does not exist it should.

First, I'm glad you've looking at the humanitarian aspect of this resolution! :)

The IRCO isn't supposed to be exactly like the real world. We have the freedom to be creative and roleplay the IRCO just like we play with our nations.

Please check out the following forum:
http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?c=6

This is something I put together in November, because I felt that there was a serious void in UN based roleplaying. The idea of that IRCO forum is to really be a clearing house.

For example, let's pretend I'm in the International Incidents forum and I want to pretend my nation still got hit by a volcanic eruption. Though my government might have some ability to help its citizens, as Mikitivity, I could run to the IRCO forum and request that other nations send humanitarian aid. In turn the Intl Red Cross (a puppet) would then start telegramming other nations asking for help / supplies / money.

The NationStates resolution only set the IRCO up to help UN members deal with disasters (natural or man-made).

The clause you are talking about doesn't prohibit nations from still contributing aid, but just asks them to work together and to use the IRCO (based on the resolution Grosseschaunzer posted).

On that note, for ANY players interested in joining in future humanitarian aid roleplaying, please post on the IRCO board I created. When I created the IRCO puppet, the idea was just to add a bit of flavour to the game.

The major problem with NationStates UN resolutions is that most of them are fire and forget diplomatic missiles. The authors of most UN resolutions have long since left the game. Many of the others don't really care about actively participating in the UN any more. That means it is upon those of us that care about the UN to actually pick up with others have left off.

It is pointless.

The recent tsunami was a very rare sight. 9 on Richter's scale is very rare, and there is no reason that such thing would ever happen again.

OK, so assuming we've spotted a tsunami - what do we do? There isn't much we could do about it, really, because people are very unlikely to even listen to the UN's warnings. They may not want to listen to the warnings because either they make money out of tourism, and they don't want people to start a global scare or they don't believe the UN in general.

We should put more funding into things like disarming nuclear weapons - which are likely to cause a lot mare problems than a tsunami, not to mention that it's controllable unlike tsunamis.

The Armed Republic of Webbsheviks would happen to agree with Ziggania on this point. Alerts should be locally-centralized, not dispersed and weakened. When humanitarian aid is needed, it will be given. We shouldn't MAKE each other give money to a country just hit by any natural disaster. If we did, think of if your country and region were devastated and didn't have the cash, hoping to receive the same funds. Basically meaning that the tender comes back full circle and we're back at square one. If more than one country is needing in this department, then we're all taking money from pockets that aren't there. This Tsunami aid is too commanding and restrictive. I vote no.

The Armed Republic of Webbsheviks would happen to agree with Ziggania on this point. Alerts should be locally-centralized, not dispersed and weakened. When humanitarian aid is needed, it will be given. We shouldn't MAKE each other give money to a country just hit by any natural disaster. If we did, think of if your country and region were devastated and didn't have the cash, hoping to receive the same funds. Basically meaning that the tender comes back full circle and we're back at square one. If more than one country is needing in this department, then we're all taking money from pockets that aren't there. This Tsunami aid is too commanding and restrictive. I vote no.

But if there is a tidal wave 30 meters high, sweeping towards the costs of twelve nations, would it not be better that everyone find out about it, not just your nation? I am pretty sure the other 11 nations could benifit from knowing what is about to hit them.

As for the aid side - eh. If you have just had most of your population and business and infrastructure wiped out, wouldn't you be happier knowing people are going to help you rebuild, rather than just leaving you on your own to die?

When humanitarian aid is needed, it will be given.

This is wonderful news!


We shouldn't MAKE each other give money to a country just hit by any natural disaster.

We did not see the resolution FORCING humanitarian aid:


9. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that in the event of a tsunami disaster that nations will continue to offer humanitarian assistance to affected nations; and

10. ASKS that member nations work with the International Red Cross Organization to coordinate international tsunami relief efforts.

Dear Kingdom of Magnorama,

My government would like to know what you consider "once a century" in light of the following taken from the FAQ:
do you have some perverse compulsion to reply to the obvious fly-by-night posters?
this resolution is as good as passed.







and congratulations to everyone involved!

it's probably more often said in overstatement, but this resolution really will make the world a better place!

this resolution is as good as passed.!

Maybe. But Grosseschnauzer is quite old fashioned about such things; we don't believe in counting chickens before they hatch! :)

I still don't see how this program will work. Members of the United Nations, you must understand that a tsunami only needs 20 minutes to reach a shore line. It will take hours to even evacuate a medium city of around 1 million population. I just don't see how this prevention system will work, since tsunamis are usually caused by earthquakes, and we do not even have the technology to predict over land earthquakes, to even speak of under water ones! Also, most of the other disasters, such as global warming and meteors, will be too grand for people to evacuate from. Global warming is a slow process; however, if global warming is to the extent that the world is struck with tsunamis, then we won't be talking much about the future of humanity. Meteors that cause tsunamis will also probably end human history, because it will destroy our bio-sphere. Thus I must ask the members of the United Nations to replan this bill, before allowing it to pass.

do you have some perverse compulsion to reply to the obvious fly-by-night posters?
this resolution is as good as passed.

and congratulations to everyone involved!

it's probably more often said in overstatement, but this resolution really will make the world a better place!

Thank you. I actually felt that yours and the comments from many others when this resolution was still being debated in draft form really were constructive and is the reason for many of the existing clauses.

As for fly-by-night posters, I do have a compulsion ... but I wouldn't describe it as being perverse. ;) I am just hopeful that some of the people who feel the need to voice their opinions might also take the time to read other people's opinions and more importantly consider the responses to their posts.

As an aside, I've once thought of taking a popular thread (high post and view count) and then looking to see how many unqiue posters were in the thread, and of them how many who seemed to be against a resolution and called it horrible are still in the game. But I'm too lazy to go to that much trouble! :)

you'd have to take one that's more than a month old, because that's how long it takes for a nationstate to get deleted once the player stops playing.

We congratulate the authors on their well timed and erudite campaign, of course some of us opposed the resolution, this would be a pretty boring place if no one did.

We now look forward to the first streams of data arriving and hope the next Tsnunami is in the distant future.

I still don't see how this program will work. Members of the United Nations, you must understand that a tsunami only needs 20 minutes to reach a shore line. It will take hours to even evacuate a medium city of around 1 million population. I just don't see how this prevention system will work, since tsunamis are usually caused by earthquakes, and we do not even have the technology to predict over land earthquakes, to even speak of under water ones! Also, most of the other disasters, such as global warming and meteors, will be too grand for people to evacuate from. Global warming is a slow process; however, if global warming is to the extent that the world is struck with tsunamis, then we won't be talking much about the future of humanity. Meteors that cause tsunamis will also probably end human history, because it will destroy our bio-sphere. Thus I must ask the members of the United Nations to replan this bill, before allowing it to pass.

And if you can save some lives, even if you can't save all of them, then you have done a good thing and this resolution has served it's purpose.

Vote AGAINST the Tsunami Warning System

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Resolution is an outragous expense that will end up being footed by the wealthier nations who are often not at high risk from a tsunami threat. It is typically Asian and Pasific nations of a lower socio-economic standing that find themselves at risk of tsunami threat, and it is nations of which tsunamis are of little concern who will be forced to shoulder this massive burden.

The United Nations has already seen fit to clutter itself with wasteful and over-zealous projects that have left many nations billions out of pocket and it is a dangerous trend that seems to be taking root.

We cannot allow nations to claim sovereignty and yet divorce themselves of their duty to protect their borders and palm the responability off to other nations and this institution.

Rotovia for one will NOT be party to the third world's attempted hijacking of our resources and exploitation of our kindness. Not only is this Resolution unacceptable in where the burden of cost will fall, it is over-ambitious and in need of re-evaluation.

It is for the aforementioned reasons that Rotovia has cast the Delegate vote for Reformed Oceania AGAINST this Resolution and encourages others to follow suit.

OOC: I know it's late but ironically by job involves numerous chairty agencies and has become that much more time consuming since the tsunami disaster.

As far as Grosseschnauzer knows, the issue has never been a developed world versus developing world kind of issue. (Using RL as an example, the strongest supporters for establishment of what amounts to a global system is the United States, not exactly considered a developing country in anyone's world.) It is a civil defense-protection issue, primarily to protect lives and encourage steps that protect property as well.
So we're not exactly sure hoe the contention is made that the resolution is a effort by the developing nations to just "take" and benefit themselves for their own benefit from the developed world.
This simply has nothing to do with developing versus developed nations (a-k-a the north -south conflict.)

We of the Borderlands of Negamamegedon have voted against said proposal
not for a lack of compassion for victims of tsunami tragedies in any way
but out of a fear that this agreement will allow the possibility of take over of individual nation states and pave the way for a one world government.


"3. SUGGESTS that governments that do not have seismic networks work with the TEWC and other nations in order to enhance existing seismic monitoring and planetary and oceanography programs (which can be considered linked to police and emergency response budgets for the purposes of NationStates); "

Q: How would one propose doing this maybe satellite data, teams of scientists, teams of surveyors, purchasing equipment from nations with the technology?

We feel even in this small portion of text that the same technology to save
the world from disaster could be used to piggy-back spy technology and information gathering devices to rule over us by playing on our fears.

We are sure of one thing this proposal is merely a fear mongering tool thinly
veiled as profiteering scheme and one world government agenda.

Vote AGAINST the Tsunami Warning System

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Resolution is an outragous expense that will end up being footed by the wealthier nations who are often not at high risk from a tsunami threat. It is typically Asian and Pasific nations of a lower socio-economic standing that find themselves at risk of tsunami threat, and it is nations of which tsunamis are of little concern who will be forced to shoulder this massive burden.


Do these people who are not at risk ever visit countries that are?

Last UN Decision

The resolution Tsunami Warning System was passed 15,961 votes to 2,678, and implemented in all UN member nations.

The Federation of Grosseschnauzer, speaking for itself as the sponsor of record of the resolution, wishes to express its thanks and appreciation to all the nations and delegates who voted for the adoption of the resolution. (We're pretty sure our co-sponsors will join in with their statements of appreciation as well!)

Do these people who are not at risk ever visit countries that are?
I am sure these people also visit countries that are at risk of terrorist attack or enter buildings in foreign countries where there may be fire risk. It does not mean it becomes the host nation may shirk responsability and cost over to the first world.

It is requested that a formal objection to this passage of this Resolution be noted by all those present.

Vote AGAINST the Tsunami Warning System

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Resolution is an outragous expense that will end up being footed by the wealthier nations who are often not at high risk from a tsunami threat. It is typically Asian and Pasific nations of a lower socio-economic standing that find themselves at risk of tsunami threat, and it is nations of which tsunamis are of little concern who will be forced to shoulder this massive burden.

The United Nations has already seen fit to clutter itself with wasteful and over-zealous projects that have left many nations billions out of pocket and it is a dangerous trend that seems to be taking root.

We cannot allow nations to claim sovereignty and yet divorce themselves of their duty to protect their borders and palm the responability off to other nations and this institution.

Rotovia for one will NOT be party to the third world's attempted hijacking of our resources and exploitation of our kindness. Not only is this Resolution unacceptable in where the burden of cost will fall, it is over-ambitious and in need of re-evaluation.

It is for the aforementioned reasons that Rotovia has cast the Delegate vote for Reformed Oceania AGAINST this Resolution and encourages others to follow suit.

OOC: I know it's late but ironically by job involves numerous chairty agencies and has become that much more time consuming since the tsunami disaster.
This resolution probably had the most extensive cost vetting of any resolution to date.
The expense will be minimal - my nation isn't old or extremely rich, but we could cover the entire cost of the resolution for all the nationstates planets with 1 day of our government's budget. And couple hours of GDP of my country alone.

There is no outrageous expense here.

This resolution probably had the most extensive cost vetting of any resolution to date.

The expense will be minimal - my nation isn't old or extremely rich, but we could cover the entire cost of the resolution for all the nationstates planets with 1 day of our government's budget. And couple hours of GDP of my country alone.

There is no outrageous expense here.

Thanks Asshelmetta! :) And I agree. In the year I've been here, I've seen no resolution that could point to so many concrete costs as this one has, and only a few other resolutions could even point to the volumes of research as presented here.

I agree and feel proud, when I say that I think this resolution is an example of how resolutions should work. It was discussed as a draft proposal for nearly 3 weeks and its text was significantly altered based on the constructive comments provided by numerous players. The authors of the resolution worked together both in drafting the resolution and then telegramming nations to get a record breaking endorsement count for the proposal (we had over 330 endorsements when I last checked).

Other interesting facts, percentage wise this resolution is #9 of 113 resolutions in percentage of support, coming in at 86%. 25th in total number of votes cast and 7th in total number of votes cast in favour.

I had a wonderful time working with everybody here and off-site, but naturally a special thanks is due to Tejasdom who started this process, Groot Gouda and Asshelmetta both of whom stuck to their guns and offered support, but continually encouraged GS and myself to round out the resolution, and finally Grosseschnauzer who kept the process moving along as the lead, despite the turmoil in the North Pacific, managed to focus the debate on the resolution itself, and naturally provided countless detailed responses to questions (with links for additional reading).

I also appreciate the numerous positive telegrams and replies directed to those of us behind this effort.

I honestly think this bodes well for the NS UN and I'm hoping that in Feb. that I'll be able to participate in somewhat similar effort. :)

It is requested that a formal objection to this passage of this Resolution be noted by all those present.
Objection noted, and ignored.

I would like to acknowledge my support of this great cause...I may be a tad late but i have had matters to attend to. I would like to whole heartedly apologize to the UN and the victims, themselves.

Being a landlocked country, The Empire of Malignant Tumors is in full support of Tsunamis. You see, people who live in coastal countries are usually outcasts of society. They need to be purged from the earth, so I am all for Tsunamis.

Objection noted, and ignored.
Isn't that kind of a paradox?

Lest anyone care to object to the financing provisions, the Oppressed Peoples of Asshelmetta volunteer to foot the bil for the entire project.

Lest anyone care to object to the financing provisions, the Oppressed Peoples of Asshelmetta volunteer to foot the bil for the entire project.
Swell! I will alert my regional constituents immediately. Will you pay directly, or reimburse nations for what they've already paid?

Ok has anything that has been voted on failed? Really on pages 1-6 on un resolutions through history not a single one has failed. I say we make a resolution that can't pass, or shouldn't and see if it does just to prove my point.

Ok has anything that has been voted on failed? Really on pages 1-6 on un resolutions through history not a single one has failed. I say we make a resolution that can't pass, or shouldn't and see if it does just to prove my point.

The game only archives resolutions that passed.

The United Nations Association, a Non-Governmental Organization, actually archives the text of all resolutions that reach the UN floor, and also provides links to the draft proposal and resolution debates in addition to a brief historical analysis.

The following is a Chronological Summary Index of all UN resolutions:
http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/Ressummary.pdf

You'll see that a number of resolutions actually failed. They are listed in red.

If you back up the link a bit, you'll see that the UNA has a host of other useful documents:
http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/

10kMichael
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

I don't want to go through all that trouble *sulks*

As a nation of shipbuilders located in the South Pacific, The Free Land of Mariskale is particularly interested in this issue. While the cost may be difficult for us to bear, we feel that the cost in human life lost to a tsnuami would be much much worse. If your nation could save millions with only a little currency, it would seem to be the moral thing to do, would it not? We encourage all nations, regardless of location to support this resolution.

You simpleton! This warning system is NOT, I repeat NOT going to stop tidal waves from happening! There is little or no way to escape these once in a lifetime disasters. Man's inability to defeat nature is on display regularly for the whole planet to see, yet mankind learns nothing! INCREDIBLE!