NationStates Jolt Archive

My Proposal for a Resolution Reads:
--------------------------------------
Category: International Security
Strength: Weak

UAS or Universal Alert System:

DEMANDS that all UN Members who have information on a possible disaster must report it to all effected Nations

STATING that many disasters happen each and every year that could be prevented by information from other nations.

DISASTERS :
Hurricanes
Large Storm Systems
Meteors
Volcanic Eruption
Earthquake
Tsunamies
OTHER Disasters that effect large amounts of people

WORKING HAND-IN-HAND with Resolution "#90 Tsunami Warning System" and Resolution "#64 Tracking Near Earth Objects", UAS "patches" up any "holes" or anything that these resolutions do not cover.

IN TIMES OF WAR, UAS does not include warning nations of YOUR actions against them.

UAS only demands you alert nations of upcoming disasters, but does not demand you help them.

UAS CAN BE CHANGED by resolutions "added on" or amended to this resolution.
-----------------------------------

I ask what you think of this proposal and if I could change it in any way. If you like it enough I even ask that you vote for it. I am just asking for some feedback though so I can make my resolutions better in any way.

Very loose proposal.

For example, my seismologists detect an oncoming quake. There are approximately four minutes before its effects are felt in Quatari Loupo, where it is centered.

How are we to deal with this detection?

Are military programs exempt?

anyone have any comments?

Very loose proposal.

For example, my seismologists detect an oncoming quake. There are approximately four minutes before its effects are felt in Quatari Loupo, where it is centered.

How are we to deal with this detection?

Are military programs exempt?

You let Quatari Loupo know about it, where they can deal with it how they choose.

ne more comments?

Alright, three years later we tell them they would have one.

And you didn't mention the bit about militaries.

Military Programs exemption is optional

And you have to tell them BEFORE the disaster, thats the whole point of the resolution

Military Programs exemption is optional

And you have to tell them BEFORE the disaster, thats the whole point of the resolution

Alright - mind spelling out how?

UN resoultions cannot be ammended. Its a good res so take that clause out or it will be deleted. That would be a pity cause i want this to pass. It would be nice to have a chage from the repeal/ legalize prostituion crap :)

UN resoultions cannot be ammended. Its a good res so take that clause out or it will be deleted. That would be a pity cause i want this to pass. It would be nice to have a chage from the repeal/ legalize prostituion crap :)

Thanks, and by Amend, I was meaning someone was to make another resolutions saying something like:

Amendment to UAS

(text)


That type of thing for an amendment
..................................
And I wouldnt really need to spell it out, because telling them before the disaster would just be common sense. People dont need to hear more common sense...

Why is it called common sense if it is so rare?

So... Let's say I have word that state X is going to drop a bomb on state Y, am I required to sacrifice hegemony to warn state Y, and what if the intellegence is false? What about enforcement? What about states who don't want to participate, they can make off free of any loss of hegemony by just saying they did not have intellegence about this?
Too many holes, leads to a definition of the U.N. being forced to handle military disasters in their mandate, forcing a communicative, constantly intertwined society, and slows down progress in disaster prevention by being too vague.

I stand against this, mainly because it assumes states can communicate properly. It does not specify the agency of enforcement, or even if there is any enforcement. It does not examine a state's personal intellegence. It forces the U.N. to examine an international security communicative task force. Not to mention it causes damage to thie progress being made in this field by assuming a loose definition of disaster, and creating a climate in which we are forced to examine military events as being part of the U.N.''s mandate for helping the world. Which causes displacement in the hierarchy of hegemony in the U.N. states.

The loose definition of disaster in this resolution leads to inconquerable security, hegemony, societal, and economic problems I cannot tolerate.

-Wertible Descaras
-Senior Chairman of U.N. Communications.

You have to describe how UN Members will communicate to each other. They should setup a link between each other's Governments. Or should have agents with all Governments of member states. Or you could organise different centres setup by the UN for different disasters. Example:- for tsunami detection in the Pacific the USA could be incharge whereas for Earthquake Japan should be in charge. Or something like that. but definitely there have 2 be centres in each country. Otherwise this info will go through diplomatic and political channels and by then the disaster wouldve struck.

My Proposal for a Resolution Reads:
--------------------------------------
Category: International Security
Strength: Weak

UAS or Universal Alert System:

DEMANDS that all UN Members who have information on a possible disaster must report it to all effected Nations

Cerealean: The Oppressed Peoples of Asshelmetta have information on a possible disaster about to happen in your nationstate. It's probably going to happen pretty soon.

There, I've complied with the resolution, right?
p.s. REQUIRES might be more appropriate than DEMANDS in this resolution.
p.p.s. OTHER Disasters? Like nuclear missiles or impending deathstar attacks?
p.p.p.s. the last clause is no good - the mods can't let the proposal become a resolution when it has something against game mechanics in it.

What is it with you people and lack of common sense?

If something was about to happen to someone and you knew what it was, then you wouldnt just tell them "something is about to happen to you", you would tell them what was going to happen.

Yes, Requires would be a better word

I dont think that is against the rules, because it is not changing game mechanics for me to go and make a proposal saying:

Amendment for Tsunami Warning System

(text)

That would not be going against rules.

My Proposal for a Resolution Reads:
WORKING HAND-IN-HAND with Resolution "#90 Tsunami Warning System" and Resolution "#64 Tracking Near Earth Objects", UAS "patches" up any "holes" or anything that these resolutions do not cover.
I "think" you should "work" on your use of "quotes." ;)

Other than that, take the other suggestions to heart. They are actually really good improvements. Clarify about the times of war or this will die within a matter of hours. Maybe just limit it to natural disasters, because anything regulating military intelligence sharing could compromise thousands of treaties and military alliances.

What is it with you people and lack of common sense?

If something was about to happen to someone and you knew what it was, then you wouldnt just tell them "something is about to happen to you", you would tell them what was going to happen.

Yes, Requires would be a better word

I dont think that is against the rules, because it is not changing game mechanics for me to go and make a proposal saying:

Amendment for Tsunami Warning System

(text)

That would not be going against rules.
Yes, that would be going against the rules. As I understand them, anyway - you might want to ask for clarification on that from the gnomes.

The only way to amend a resolution is to repeal it and submit a new one.
And a fine rule that is, because this way we only spend 20% of our time re-debating abortion and prostitution.

p.s. oh yeah. That thing that was likely to happen to you pretty soon? Your nation was going to be vaporized by a death star. Don't look at me, mang - Asshelmetta is more-or-less current era.

p.p.s. so, uh... hope that death star thing worked out ok for you.

What is it with you people and lack of common sense?

If something was about to happen to someone and you knew what it was, then you wouldnt just tell them "something is about to happen to you", you would tell them what was going to happen.

Yes, Requires would be a better word

I dont think that is against the rules, because it is not changing game mechanics for me to go and make a proposal saying:

Amendment for Tsunami Warning System

(text)

That would not be going against rules.

The law isn't interpreted on grounds of common sense. 'Well I mean' means nothing if it isn't in the proposal.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World