NationStates Jolt Archive

Since I'm not seeing another official topic, and since I'm mucking around with this stuff, here's the Proposal. I make, and have, no comment on this. I'm simply posting.

Nuclear Energy Research Act
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The Beltway

Description: (Co-authored by Yelda)

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

APPLAUDING the passage of Resolution #151 “Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act,”

BELIEVING the benefits of peaceful atomic energy technology should be available to all UN member nations,

AFFIRMING the right of UN member nations to exchange scientific information on the peaceful application of atomic energy,

NOTING that scientific advancement benefits greatly from collaboration of scientists from multiple nations,

CONCERNED with the potentially international and devastating impact of accidents involving nuclear reactors,

ACKNOWLEDGING that current techniques for disposal of nuclear waste materials are often lacking;

RECOGNIZING the threat of terrorist attacks on nuclear reactors,

DECLARING that all UN member nations are entitled to participate in the free trade of fissionable materials used in said technological applications,

HEREBY:

1. ESTABLISHES the Nuclear Energy Research Commission (NERC), mandated to:
I - Coordinate research into safer and more efficient methods of nuclear power generation,
II - Coordinate research into safer means of nuclear waste disposal,
III - Support efforts to improve the security of nuclear plants;

2. STRONGLY URGES UN member nations to provide assistance to the NERC;

3. CALLS UPON UN member nations to conduct research into safer and more efficient methods of nuclear power generation, especially when such research is not already being conducted by other entities;

4. ENCOURAGES the sale and transfer of nuclear power generation materials and technology between UN nations;

5. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of nuclear power generation technology, equipment and fissionable materials, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

6. FURTHER REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of electrical power generated by nuclear power plants, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

7. EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-member nations to prevent price dumping;

8. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any trade disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this legislation.

Edit:
So, what's this resolution about?
It's designed to promote research and trade of civilian nuclear technology and civilian nuclear energy.

But couldn't a nation use nuclear fuel to make nuclear bombs?
Wrong type of fuel. Bombs need weaponized (90% or more fissionable Uranium/Plutonium) nuclear fuel; reactors need enriched (2-3% fissionable Uranium/Plutonium) nuclear fuel.

Couldn't a nation enrich the nuclear fuel and make nukes?
If it can enrich the fuel itself. Centrifuges and other means of enriching uranium are not a means of generating nuclear power, nor a piece of equipment needed to generate nuclear power, nor fissionable materials. Means of enriching uranium are therefore not covered by NERA.

Free trade's bad!
Rhetoric is nice, but this is a Q&A. Please ask a question.

Fine. I hate free trade. Why should I vote for this?
One, the sector involved is, for most nations, a minor sector of the economy. Two, the length of time before free trade must be enacted in the nuclear energy sector is eleven years, while the NERC starts immediately, allowing your companies to develop better nuclear technology faster. Three, the NERC is an incredibly useful tool for the world. Four, the UNFTC is an "impartial commission" that can settle disputes fairly.

But I have restrictions/a ban in place for nuclear power. Will those/that remain?
As long as they apply equally to domestic and foreign companies.

What if I have to cut back on nuclear trade due to energy crises?
The UNFTC is an impartial commission that will be able to settle any disputes that may arise.

Aren't you just plutocrats trying to get rich off of the poor countries of the world?
No, we're technocrats and bureaucrats trying to improve the conditions of all nations by making electrical power cheaper and nuclear power safer.

What if I have another question?
Then [The Beltway will] provide you with another answer.

As the Head of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Zabbar Malta I herebly agree to the proposal

*signs For the contract*

Purely in the interests of debate, for I agree with this resolution in spirit and in wording, I am going to go through the proposal and put forwards some of my questions about its articles.

Nuclear Energy Research Act
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The Beltway

Description: (Co-authored by Yelda)

HEREBY:

1. ESTABLISHES the Nuclear Energy Research Commission (NERC), mandated to:
I - Coordinate research into safer and more efficient methods of nuclear power generation,
II - Coordinate research into safer means of nuclear waste disposal,
III - Support efforts to improve the security of nuclear plants;

Could I suggest a sub-clause IV:

"IV - Support efforts to assist nations in adhering to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act and in diverting, should they choose to do so and strictly per their request, existing war-related nuclear technology into peaceful applications".

Or would this come under clause II?

And also perhaps a sub-clause V:

"V - Coordinate research into efforts to formulate and implement safe uranium and plutonium extraction and enrichment programmes for nations to use".

4. ENCOURAGES the sale and transfer of nuclear power generation materials and technology between UN nations;

Would NERC be responsible for checking all transactions?

5. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of nuclear power generation technology, equipment and fissionable materials, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

If a nation has quotas on uranium or plutonium use per year for their nation, would they be allowed to retain these types of quotas if they do not interfere with the export and import of nuclear power generation technology, equipment and fissionable materials?

6. FURTHER REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of electrical power generated by nuclear power plants, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

In the event of an energy crisis, would there be any sanction for the violation of this clause, i.e. if energy rationing required the implementation of energy quotas.

8. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any trade disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this legislation.

Would anti-trust cases be included under the description of "trade disputes"?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Can anyone say Nuclear Proliferation?

Can anyone say Nuclear Proliferation?
Yes, I can say it. No, I can't do it: Nuclear Proliferation is banned by the UN.

Imperiux is definitely in support of this. I just hope that UN embers balance out the pro's and con's of nuclear energy, and don't listen to the shameless propaganda of "Nuclear Explosions! Sign this and sign your death warrant! Be a tree-hugging liberal and stop the evil nuclear energy!". Nuclear is a way of providing energy, and does not produce any carbon emissions which harm the enviroment.

Of course renewable enrgy is favourable any day, but do you want a solution now, or do you want to have an eyesore?

Can there not be a clause that for every research dollar spent by member nations on Nuclear Research there should be equal amount spent on research into renewable energy resources such as solar, wind and water?

I'm going to solely address the operative clauses of the resolution, but please note that the preambulatory clauses on their own are cause enough for me to recommend that my government vote against.

1. ESTABLISHES the Nuclear Energy Research Commission (NERC), mandated to:
I - Coordinate research into safer and more efficient methods of nuclear power generation,
II - Coordinate research into safer means of nuclear waste disposal,
III - Support efforts to improve the security of nuclear plants;
Fine.

2. STRONGLY URGES UN member nations to provide assistance to the NERC;
Assistance is neither defined nor obligated, so no major objections. Strong urging does, however, imply that those nations that choose not to provide assistance may be subject to censure from the international community.

3. CALLS UPON UN member nations to conduct research into safer and more efficient methods of nuclear power generation, especially when such research is not already being conducted by other entities;
'Calls upon' is a troublesome use of language in that it has dual meaning. One can interpret this as merely asking member nations to comply or, disturbingly, ordering them to do so.

Ecopoeia will invoke the former interpretation and take no further action with respect to this clause.

4. ENCOURAGES the sale and transfer of nuclear power generation materials and technology between UN nations;
Opposed. We do not wish to encourage the propagation of power generated by nuclear fission - the technology is dangerous, polluting and, regardless, the case for its efficacy (in terms of delivery of power and emissions of greenhouse gases) versus other means of power generation is weak.

5. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of nuclear power generation technology, equipment and fissionable materials, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;
Vehemently opposed, in part for the reasons listed above. Additionally, the qualifier "... including but not limited to ..." is most sinister; what other measures will the NERC determine to be protectionist? More generally, are there not good reasons to restrict the trade of this technology? This document uses Resolution #151: Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act as a crutch with regards to safety. Delegates, Resolution #151 was passed with a amjority of less than 300 votes; it is extremely vulnerable to repeal. Furthermore, a nation may exploit this resolution to obtain the materials necessary to develop nuclear weaponry, then withdraw from the UN - what then?

As a side note, should this resolution pass and remain in force, then in eleven years time we will witness the collapse of the International Fair Trade Agreement within the UN.

6. FURTHER REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of electrical power generated by nuclear power plants, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;
Again, I object to encouraging the propagation of nuclear power, but given its existence, this clause is relatively inoffensive (except for UN IFTA signatories).

7. EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-member nations to prevent price dumping;
Fine.

8. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any trade disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this legislation.
I have little time for this contemptible, impartial commission*.

Delegates, I implore you to vote against this resolution. It establishes a ringing UN endorsement of a highly controversial technology, deprives nations of the right to fully determine their trade policies and has the potential to encourage the proliferation of nuclear weaponry.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

*OOC: This is pure RP - Ecopoeia views UNFTC in much the same way that many developing nations view the WTO.

Pebbletopia is against nuclear energy of all kind and believe in alternative sources of energy. As we are also against free trade, We will have to vote against.

OOC:
Just want to check something -
Are nations still allowed to forbid the trading of fissionable materials if they believe that the buyer will actually be using the material for nuclear weapons, despite assurances to the contrary? Yes, nations have the right to possess nukes, but that doesn't mean we need to help them get them.

yes that is my main concern about this proposition.
it could help countries that we REALLY dont want to have have nuclear weapons aquire them.

Either Resolution #76 would be contradicted by this, or #76 would remove the issue of nations we "don't want" getting nuclear weapons.

Either Resolution #76 would be contradicted by this, or #76 would remove the issue of nations we "don't want" getting nuclear weapons.
The Nuclear Terrorism Act doesn't deal with countries. What you're talking about is UN Resolution #151, "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act", which is not contradicted, because it deals in weapons-grade material only.

Ausserland has voted for this fine resolution. We hope our colleagues will do likewise.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Vote for this resolution!

We are against the constricting bound of oil as the only reliable form of energy. Please support nuclear power!

Remember even to support my listed proposal about "free oil market"

this resolution is insane! once a nation has nuclear energy it is a small step to the development of nuclear weapons. this is a clear violation of the nuclear proliferation resolution!

this resolution is insane! once a nation has nuclear energy it is a small step to the development of nuclear weapons. this is a clear violation of the nuclear proliferation resolution!
How so?

ARTICLE IV: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, or their participation in the exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for peaceful purposes, provided such activities are in conformity with article I of this legislation.

this resolution is insane! once a nation has nuclear energy it is a small step to the development of nuclear weapons. this is a clear violation of the nuclear proliferation resolution!

Surely the development of these weapons is prohibited by the nuclear proliferation resolution? Therefore, the risk is decreased, in fact, dare I say, destroyed.

I have voted for this resolution.

3. CALLS UPON UN member nations to conduct research into safer and more efficient methods of nuclear power generation, especially when such research is not already being conducted by other entities;


I read this article as a plea, or an urge rather than asking or ordering, though I do recognise the nature of differing interpretations. Though I believe that this is linked to article 2? Should it therefore be merged, rather than stay a stand-alone article?

I read this article as a plea, or an urge rather than asking or ordering, though I do recognise the nature of differing interpretations. Though I believe that this is linked to article 2? Should it therefore be merged, rather than stay a stand-alone article?

A little late to change it, now that it's up for a vote on the floor. And like you, I don't read "calls upon" as mandating anything.

Very well thought out resolution. Well worded.
I voted for it.
There is plenty to be gained through the scientific reseach of nuclear fission. Not everything leads to nukes ;)

--Rooty

Vehemetly opposed to clauses 5 and 6, for many of the reasons Ecopoeia pointed out.

We can't really see what banning protectionist devices for these things does for nuclear energy research. Sure, it may help nuclear energy research free trade, but if it involves removing our tariffs on imported items (it is the same tariff for each country, even if it is a Jevian-made product being imported, so we don't see the correlation in our tariffs restricting free trade), we will be opposed anyway. Take out the protectionist devices clauses, we're all for it. Though, we are currently against this proposal.

[QUOTE=Imperiux] Nuclear is a way of providing energy, and does not produce any carbon emissions which harm the enviroment./QUOTE]

Just to make a brief point, nuclear power is not carbon neutral, the process of uranium mining and transportation of uranium (Generally from countries such as China and Australia), the enrinchment process it must undergo to become usable and the disposal of its waste products all produce carbon emissions.

Again, I object to encouraging the propagation of nuclear power...

why?
Nuclear power does have its uses, and they go well beyond nuclear bombs.
While it is true that currently there are some problems associated with the technology, removing trade barriers would result in greater freedom to research and improve it.

--Rooty

The Nuclear Terrorism Act doesn't deal with countries. What you're talking about is UN Resolution #151, "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act", which is not contradicted, because it deals in weapons-grade material only.

Actually this resolution contradicts Resolution #76 as well as UN Resolution #151, and resolution #76 does deal with countries as well.
Here is an excerpts from Resolution #76:
"CAUTIONS AGAINST the proliferation of arms or technologies to irresponsible nations"

-Dictator of The Second Atlantis

Here is an excerpts from Resolution #76:
"CAUTIONS AGAINST the proliferation of arms or technologies to irresponsible nations"

-Dictator of The Second Atlantis
Yep. "Cautions against" isn't mandatory. It means we should we be careful of it, but that we can still do it.

Furthermore, that is referring to nuclear arms, not peaceful nuclear technology.

Ausserland has voted for this fine resolution. We hope our colleagues will do likewise.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign AffairsUnless it's By Order of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonard IX, I see no reason to do what this filthy dwarf tells us.

Unless it's By Order of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonard IX, I see no reason to do what this filthy dwarf tells us.
Then how about voting for it on the order of the your Don.

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

Unless it's By Order of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonard IX, I see no reason to do what this filthy dwarf tells us.

As an importer of nuclear fuel for our large and growing power industry who finds their free trade being infringed upon by the unwarrented fears of states such as the esteemed delegate's here, We applaud this proposal and encourage others to vote for it.

The government of St Edmund has instructed its ambassador to vote in favour of this proposed resolution.

(OOC: but unfortunately St Edmund has lost the 'Regional Delegate' position, again, so this is only a single vote...)

Goveas will vote for the proposal if clauses 5 and 6 are struck down. Else to protect our industry we must vote No

I am completely in support in support of this, because of the tarriffs lost. Free markets == good.

Ceorana supports this fine resolution. It will increase trade and therefore our economies, as well as other nice, good, fluffy stuff.

Robert Bobson, Deputy Undersecretary of State for UN Affairs
By direction of the Ceoranan Congress

The Palentine voted for. Might as well make some money off our research.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Then how about voting for it on the order of the your Don.

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia DonOnly if you brandish a 17-pound trout while you're at it.

I believe this resolution is rediculous. I, being a UN Delegate, and around for a fairly long time, know what would happen if we allow this resolution to pass. For one thing, Nuclear Power creates waste that can not be destroyed, and is a hazard to any in the midst. As well as that, it is terrible for our environment, and will bring our countries' ratings to record lows. I say whoever supports this either did not think at all before pressing the button, or is an insane, powerhungry dictator who cares nothing for the soil they stand on.

Thank you,
Apocalypse

I believe this resolution is rediculous. I, being a UN Delegate, and around for a fairly long time, know what would happen if we allow this resolution to pass. For one thing, Nuclear Power creates waste that can not be destroyed, and is a hazard to any in the midst. As well as that, it is terrible for our environment, and will bring our countries' ratings to record lows. I say whoever supports this either did not think at all before pressing the button, or is an insane, powerhungry dictator who cares nothing for the soil they stand on.

Again, to repeat myself:
"While it is true that currently there are some problems associated with the technology, removing trade barriers would result in greater freedom to research and improve it."
I say that instead of jumping to the conclusion that we are all powerhungry dictators, you should read what people post before "pressing the button."

--Rooty

To Leonard Otterby, Ambassador to the UN from Compadria -

Your proposed sub-clause IV is probably covered under sub-clauses I and II; further, your proposed sub-clause V would be likely to be covered under sub-clause I, as fuel is part of nuclear power generation.

Clause 4 is enforced by the UNFTC; see clause 8.

If a quota is applied fairly to both foreign and domestic companies, then it is not protectionist. If a quota is applied unfairly to foreign companies, then it is protectionist.

Any disputes over failed contracts, which could occur in an energy crisis, would go to the UNFTC for arbitration.

Anti-trust cases that involved foreign companies would probably go to the UNFTC.

Thank you for your support and for your critique; I hope I have been of assistance to you.

Sincerely,
William J. Clinton, Ambassador of The Beltway to the UN


To Lata Chakrabarti, Speaker to the UN of Ecopoeia -

"Calls upon" is not intended to order compliance, merely to encourage it; I will inform the gnomes of this fact if this resolution is passed.

The NERC has been set up, in part, to help ensure that nuclear power becomes safer, cleaner, and of higher efficacy when compared to other means of nuclear power generation. Further, note that the resolution expressly refers to nuclear power generation, rather than power generation through nuclear fission specifically.

For future reference, a protectionist measure is one that unfairly supports a domestic firm over a foreign firm. Further, note the mention of 'safer' nuclear power. 'Safer' could be defined in many ways, including safer for the world writ large. Therefore, even if Res. 151 is repealed, due to the ambiguity in 'safer,' this resolution would only encourage support to civilian nuclear technology (which is safer for the world).

What sort of issue would you have with, in your own words, an "impartial commission?" After all, if a commission is impartial, then the side with the better case will win - a fair and just system.

I hope that I have at least partially answered your doubts. Thank you for your reasoned critique of the resolution.

Sincerely,
William J. Clinton, Ambassador of The Beltway to the UN

Unless it's By Order of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonard IX, I see no reason to do what this filthy dwarf tells us.

We're a bit perplexed by this comment. We see little chance of having Prince Leonard IX order us to do anything, since we haven't a clue as to who that might be. That was probably intended to refer to our reigning monarch, Prince Leonhard II -- we guess. Of course, accuracy has never been the strong suit of the representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny. We're still trying to figure out whether he has one.

And by the way, the fact that Mr. Olembe forgot to wash his hands after eating those jelly donuts and got that red goop all over the paperwork is no reason to refer to him as filthy.

[OOC: ROTF!] :D

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I believe this resolution is rediculous. I, being a UN Delegate, and around for a fairly long time, know what would happen if we allow this resolution to pass. For one thing, Nuclear Power creates waste that can not be destroyed, and is a hazard to any in the midst. As well as that, it is terrible for our environment, and will bring our countries' ratings to record lows. I say whoever supports this either did not think at all before pressing the button, or is an insane, powerhungry dictator who cares nothing for the soil they stand on.

Thank you,
Apocalypse

Allow me to start by saying that this is one of the least
ridiculous
Resolutions that I have seen in a while. While I admit that I have not been around as long as yourself, and am not a Regional Delegate, it is at least somewhat apparent that I have given this matter more thought than yourself.

We'll continue with your actual arguments. Nearly every form of energy production creates waste, much of which is difficult to dispose of. Nuclear energy, in fact, can create less than coal or oil. I realize that such may seem obvious to many, but with past tech nations abroad, they could really stand to improve their environments through the newly available technology. And while nuclear power plants can potentially be hazardous, with the sharing of information and techniques for safer handling and maintenance, such risks can be minimized. As for the environment, once again, it is cleaner and better for the environment than coal or oil, takes up less potential forest space than wind energy farms, and has less impact on the immediate ecosystem than hydro dams which divert and alter the natural flow of rivers.

In close, we thought long and hard before pressing the button, and the fact that Kivisto is ruled by an insane, power hungry dictator didn't really come into play too much. Even though He's crazy, He still cares.

Respectfully
Oskar Feldstein
UN Representative for Kivisto
Appointed by The Master in Repose
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

I have to vote against this resolution. It states:
"4. ENCOURAGES the sale and transfer of nuclear power generation materials and technology between UN nations;". Do you know how easy it is to make nuclear weapons out of Uranium? It's simple, take Uranium 235, hit a neutron into it to create Uranium 236, and let the chain reaction start. The only thing is is that Uranium 235 is used in both power and weapons. If we trade our technology with other nations allowing them to create Uranium 236, they could use that and a potentially dangerous weapon. I believe that to make me vote for this resolution it would have to mention something about the possibility that this resolution could be used to create WMD's and would have to find a solution.

Carnopolis

I have to vote against this resolution. It states:
"4. ENCOURAGES the sale and transfer of nuclear power generation materials and technology between UN nations;". Do you know how easy it is to make nuclear weapons out of Uranium? It's simple, take Uranium 235, hit a neutron into it to create Uranium 236, and let the chain reaction start. The only thing is is that Uranium 235 is used in both power and weapons. If we trade our technology with other nations allowing them to create Uranium 236, they could use that and a potentially dangerous weapon. I believe that to make me vote for this resolution it would have to mention something about the possibility that this resolution could be used to create WMD's and would have to find a solution.

Carnopolis
This resolution has no bearing on weapons technology. Nations were already allowed to give uranium to each other, this is encouraging nations to trade it for peaceful purposes.

You may also wish to see resolution#151, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act.

the empire of marlina here.
i am in the UN yet.
1. ESTABLISHES the Nuclear Energy Research Commission (NERC), mandated to:
I - Coordinate research into safer and more efficient methods of nuclear power generation,
II - Coordinate research into safer means of nuclear waste disposal,
III - Support efforts to improve the security of nuclear plants;
but don't use it in wars

OOC:
Just want to check something -
Are nations still allowed to forbid the trading of fissionable materials if they believe that the buyer will actually be using the material for nuclear weapons, despite assurances to the contrary? Yes, nations have the right to possess nukes, but that doesn't mean we need to help them get them.
Does anyone have an answer to my question? This is a serious matter, both in NS and the Real World.

There is no possible way that we can support this resolution.

First, our prime directive forbids us from sharing our technology that could be turned into a weapon. Although we realize that anything could theoretically be turned into a weapon, the possibility of nuclear power tech being used to create weapons is high.

Nuclear non-proliferation does not prohibit nations from delevoping nukes themselves.

ARTICLE II: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to develop nuclear arms using their own technology and manufacturing capabilities.

Therefore once a nation has the nuclear technology there is no legal requirement not to develop this into nuclear weapons.

Regardless of whether this resolution is passed or not our technology, and all information related to our nuclear program will not be permitted to leave our borders. Sadly, despite our high regard for the Universal Peace and cooperation that the UN stands for, we may be forced to withdraw from the UN should this resolution be used as a means to try and obtain our technology.

Fermiparadoxia wholeheartedly votes in favor this resolution.

First, our prime directive forbids us from sharing our technology that could be turned into a weapon.

Yet I quote Article I (2) of Resolution #151:

ARTICLE I. UN member nations shall not:
(2) Assist or induce any nation to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or control over such weapons.

Surely this includes the trade of nuclear materials and fissions that could possibly be turned into weaponry?

We are going to offer Geobacter bacteria for nuclear bioremediation, this will help clean up heavy metals from nuclear sites as well as remove uranium from water. Also, we are going to suggest the development of sonofusion and fusion technologies. Deuterium and heavy water fusion devices have a supposedly much shorter half-life than uranium a period of 20-40 years which is manageable. Much of our technology is PMT. We believe that nuclear energy in the fission form is very dangerous.

OOC:

Could someone translate what this means, I am kinda new. What happends if I vote for or against.

OOC:

Could someone translate what this means, I am kinda new. What happends if I vote for or against.
Well, if you vote for, you're supporting the resolution. That means you want to encourage research and free trade in nuclear energy and related technologies, but not weapons material. If you vote against, you're saying you disagree with the resolution: maybe you don't like nuclear energy, don't like free trade, or similar.

Fordington agrees with the general spirit of this resolution, but cannot vote for it due to operative clauses 5 and 6, which it feels are to broad in their demand for abolition of tarrifs and other restricitve measures, and do not make not of the individual circumstances many countries my face which lead them to employ restrictive measures in the first place. we also feel these clauses are almost contradicted by clause 7, which in a way admits that TOTAL removal of restricitve measures is harsh, and depite what the two clauses before it said, allows countries to use restricitve measures anyway! Fordington finds this logic bizarre at best.

Therefore, depsite its support of nuclear technology as a viable and positive improvement to fossil fuels, Fordington feels this resolution clouds the issue and will vote against it.

Nuclear is a way of providing energy, and does not produce any carbon emissions which harm the enviroment.

I think we can deal a lot easier with carbon emissions but those emissions from so called nuke energy might be a little harder to breath in the long run. Also harder to clean or clear up..

Thus the idea is a good one as all working toward cleaner nukes in any form would serve better than each going it on their own.. and blowing heck out of themselves and others simply because they don't have to smarts to do it right.

To Leonard Otterby, Ambassador to the UN from Compadria -

Your proposed sub-clause IV is probably covered under sub-clauses I and II; further, your proposed sub-clause V would be likely to be covered under sub-clause I, as fuel is part of nuclear power generation.

Clause 4 is enforced by the UNFTC; see clause 8.

If a quota is applied fairly to both foreign and domestic companies, then it is not protectionist. If a quota is applied unfairly to foreign companies, then it is protectionist.

Any disputes over failed contracts, which could occur in an energy crisis, would go to the UNFTC for arbitration.

Anti-trust cases that involved foreign companies would probably go to the UNFTC.

Thank you for your support and for your critique; I hope I have been of assistance to you.

Sincerely,
William J. Clinton, Ambassador of The Beltway to the UN

Thank you sir for your response, I remain supportive of this resolution and wish you the best of luck.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

We'll continue with your actual arguments. Nearly every form of energy production creates waste, much of which is difficult to dispose of. Nuclear energy, in fact, can create less than coal or oil.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. A number of anchient designs for reactors were exceptionally poluting, and self contanimating. Containimation spread through all parts of the system, including the turbines. As having lived in an area where "let's test fire this puppy" was a common attitude, once you flip the switch on, you have to use it or idle it. At least you can dismantle an oil plant or convert it to coal/natural gas/hydrogen.

Newer designs, however, use a double cooling system so that contaminated water does not go through the trubines. They have more efficient systems in the event of failure. You would probably have more of a threat from oil tank facilities than you would from new nuclear power plants these days. (London had a major oil tank fire a few months ago.)

As people are fond of saying NS is not the RW. Nuclear is the only practical option for my nation. I simply don't have enough space to effectively house 4.234 billion people, solar wind farms and a nice wildland to allow my pelicans to frollic, before they are then eaten as our national food source. Oil is still a major necessity for our nation because we refuse to be without dry cleaning, but nuclear is the best option.

I think this is important and cannot be understressed. Nuclear technology has greatly improved over the many decades of its existance. It is therefore vital and necessary that improvements in technology must be freely transmitted throughout the nuclear community. Old technology is bad but new technology is good. And further developments can only be better.

Only if you brandish a 17-pound trout while you're at it.
Unfortunatly my 17-pound trout has spoiled, would a 23-pound catfish work instead?

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don.

Well, if you vote for, you're supporting the resolution. That means you want to encourage research and free trade in nuclear energy and related technologies, but not weapons material. If you vote against, you're saying you disagree with the resolution: maybe you don't like nuclear energy, don't like free trade, or similar.

Thank yoyu for your help.

so no matter what world you live in Nuclear is seen by many as the only means of power.

Why be a bunch of sheep and follow the path that has been created before?

why can't a sustainable enery resource (and technology) be used to promote trade?
Why do we need to destory everything

vote no!

We're a bit perplexed by this comment. We see little chance of having Prince Leonard IX order us to do anything, since we haven't a clue as to who that might be. That was probably intended to refer to our reigning monarch, Prince Leonhard II -- we guess. Of course, accuracy has never been the strong suit of the representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny. We're still trying to figure out whether he has one.Yeah, well, uhh, I probably got your puny little ruler mixed up with the Grunberger sultan, Somebody the IX. Or is it Somebody the IV? Meh. Who cares? I was going to verify the prince's name before I spoke, but I got distracted by something shiny. So I had to go with what I had when my turn came.

As to our position on the standing resolution, the Federal Republic will be voting--

Ooo! Something shiny!

[Runs up the aisle to inspect said shiny object.]

i don't think its as much the fuel, (fuel problems? telegram me, i've got the solution) i think the HUGE thing is protection against evil satanic nations with big bad nuclear weapons. if i could vote, i would SO VOTE AGAINST IT!!!

i don't think its as much the fuel, (fuel problems? telegram me, i've got the solution) i think the HUGE thing is protection against evil satanic nations with big bad nuclear weapons. if i could vote, i would SO VOTE AGAINST IT!!!
See Res. 151 (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act).

Yep. "Cautions against" isn't mandatory. It means we should we be careful of it, but that we can still do it.

Furthermore, that is referring to nuclear arms, not peaceful nuclear technology.

Yes but this proposal says:
REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of nuclear power generation technology, equipment and fissionable materials, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

Therefore if there is free trade for nuclear weapons between nations, you can't caught against the proliferation of arms or technologies to irresponsible nations. And what do you think nuclear arms come from? Let's see if you can figure this out? NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY! I am for the safety of transfer of information for safety in nuclear technology, yet this was already discussed in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act.The Nuclear Non-Proliferation act was the perfect resolution for nuclear trade, yet this proposal go against the resolution and creates many alarming statements.

so no matter what world you live in Nuclear is seen by many as the only means of power.

Why be a bunch of sheep and follow the path that has been created before?

why can't a sustainable enery resource (and technology) be used to promote trade?
Why do we need to destory everything

vote no!
Glorth, do you deny that nuclear power can also be useful in conjunction with non-nuclear power? If so, please elaborate so that we may more properly address your concerns. If no, then why do you disapprove of a resolution designed to make civilian nuclear power safer and cheaper for the world?

Yeah, well, uhh, I probably got your puny little ruler mixed up with the Grunberger sultan, Somebody the IX. Or is it Somebody the IV? Meh. Who cares? I was going to verify the prince's name before I spoke, but I got distracted by something shiny. So I had to go with what I had when my turn came.

As to our position on the standing resolution, the Federal Republic will be voting--

Ooo! Something shiny!

[Runs up the aisle to inspect said shiny object.]

[Ambassador Ahlmann whispers to Ambassador Barfanger] Think he's been hittin' the bottle again?

[Ambassador Barfanger whispers back] At least he didn't say anything about lawn ornaments this time.

:p

Yes but this proposal says:
REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of nuclear power generation technology, equipment and fissionable materials, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

Therefore if there is free trade for nuclear weapons between nations, you can't caught against the proliferation of arms or technologies to irresponsible nations. And what do you think nuclear arms come from? Let's see if you can figure this out? NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY! I am for the safety of transfer of information for safety in nuclear technology, yet this was already discussed in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act.The Nuclear Non-Proliferation act was the perfect resolution for nuclear trade, yet this proposal go against the resolution and creates many alarming statements.
Different technology - and fuel - is involved in nuclear weapons than in nuclear reactors. Weapons-grade uranium is not covered under NERA, as it is not civilian in nature. Fuses are not covered under NERA, as they are not civilian in nature. Means of enriching nuclear fuel beyond 2-3% (the normal amount used for civilian nuclear fuel) are not covered under NERA, as they are not civilian in nature.

As a note to all, nuclear bombs need weaponized uranium (90+% U-235); nuclear power plants need merely enriched uranium (2-3% U-235).

*grumbles, stirrs, starts to wake up* It's WRONG!!! *rests back in his chair*

"Will the delegate from Evil Satanic OzMonkeys be so kind as to elaborate on this sudden outburst of distaste for the resolution at vote?" Ambassador Clinton asked.

All nuclear powered items should be officially banned! Nuclear research should as well! We should lock it somewhere and throw away the key! No matter what rules or laws there is always someone on a kamikaze mission. They don't care! What are you going to do, set thim in a corner!? A nation like this is OBVIOUSLY bloodthirsty for starting nuclear warfare, but they will continue! THey will not be stopped! Research should NOT be done, and that is just about all I say. *Dictator Larry Turnet leans over to his Vice Dictator and the VD whispers something in his ear* My Vice Dictator, Richard Potato, has laryngitis and would like me to add that, and I quote, THEY WILL NOT BE STOPPED!!!

"Excuse me? Mr. Turnet, I'm afraid you missed the part of this resolution that refers to improving safety and surety at nuclear power plants. In other words, this resolution is designed in part to improve security at nuclear power plants. Further, this resolution covers civilian nuclear power, not nuclear weaponry," Clinton said. "I'm afraid you've been misinformed."

Yes. Yes I have been. *gets up from his chair, and begins to walk out* Come on, Dick! *he says to his Vice Dictator* *Dick follows*

Glorth, do you deny that nuclear power can also be useful in conjunction with non-nuclear power? If so, please elaborate so that we may more properly address your concerns. If no, then why do you disapprove of a resolution designed to make civilian nuclear power safer and cheaper for the world?

Depends where you live really..

Are there some poor peasants out there who would benefit from this act or is this a means to increase the wealth of the developed nations who are over consuming their avalible resources?

Atomic energy and its (peaceful) technology, why does this need to be freely traded, shouldn't it be controlled like any class A Drug?

the act
1. ESTABLISHES the Nuclear Energy Research Commission (NERC), mandated to:
I - Coordinate research into safer and more efficient methods of nuclear power generation,
II - Coordinate research into safer means of nuclear waste disposal,
III - Support efforts to improve the security of nuclear plants;

Shouldn't they be required to deliver the latest research and technology to member nations? This does not seem to be one of their functions..


RECOGNIZING the threat of terrorist attacks on nuclear reactors
really when has any nuclear reactor ever been attacked?

ACKNOWLEDGING that current techniques for disposal of nuclear waste materials are often lacking;
so why continue with its use, why look to expand its use?
why not put an 11yr hold on it's use until safer disposal methods can be found

CONCERNED with the potentially international and devastating impact of accidents involving nuclear reactors,
as above..so why continue with its use?
NOTING that scientific advancement benefits greatly from collaboration of scientists from multiple nations,
or is that existing nuclear powers? Who will listen to the scientists from developing nations that have alternate views on power generation?

5. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of nuclear power generation technology, equipment and fissionable materials, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;
6. FURTHER REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of electrical power generated by nuclear power plants, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

So if you have nuclear power you want to be able to enforce it on other nations.. They can't so NO??
Is this the UN or the US??

Gloth for one will be nuclear free, and will fight for it's right to remain as such.

(go glorth!!!)

So, what's this resolution about?
It's designed to promote research and trade of civilian nuclear technology and civilian nuclear energy.

But couldn't a nation use nuclear fuel to make nuclear bombs?
Wrong type of fuel. Bombs need weaponized (90% or more fissionable Uranium/Plutonium) nuclear fuel; reactors need enriched (2-3% fissionable Uranium/Plutonium) nuclear fuel.

Couldn't a nation enrich the nuclear fuel and make nukes?
If it can enrich the fuel itself. Centrifuges and other means of enriching uranium are not a means of generating nuclear power, nor a piece of equipment needed to generate nuclear power, nor fissionable materials. Means of enriching uranium are therefore not covered by NERA.

Free trade's bad!
Rhetoric is nice, but this is a Q&A. Please ask a question.

Fine. I hate free trade. Why should I vote for this?
One, the sector involved is, for most nations, a minor sector of the economy. Two, the length of time before free trade must be enacted in the nuclear energy sector is eleven years, while the NERC starts immediately, allowing your companies to develop better nuclear technology faster. Three, the NERC is an incredibly useful tool for the world. Four, the UNFTC is an "impartial commission" (according to Ecopoeia, no less) that can settle disputes fairly.

But I have restrictions/a ban in place for nuclear power. Will those/that remain?
As long as they apply equally to domestic and foreign companies.

What if I have to cut back on nuclear trade due to energy crises?
The UNFTC is an impartial commission that will be able to settle any disputes that may arise.

Aren't you just plutocrats trying to get rich off of the poor countries of the world?
No, we're technocrats and bureaucrats trying to improve the conditions of all nations by making electrical power cheaper and nuclear power safer.

What if I have another question?
Then I'll provide you with another answer.

the act
1. ESTABLISHES the Nuclear Energy Research Commission (NERC), mandated to:
I - Coordinate research into safer and more efficient methods of nuclear power generation,
II - Coordinate research into safer means of nuclear waste disposal,
III - Support efforts to improve the security of nuclear plants;

Shouldn't they be required to deliver the latest research and technology to member nations? This does not seem to be one of their functions..

Why should we require nations (including the aforementioned poorer nations) to develop nuclear technology if it is beyond their means?
RECOGNIZING the threat of terrorist attacks on nuclear reactors
really when has any nuclear reactor ever been attacked?
Yet the threat of an attack remains. Would you rather leave a nuclear power plant unprotected?

ACKNOWLEDGING that current techniques for disposal of nuclear waste materials are often lacking;
so why continue with its use, why look to expand its use?
why not put an 11yr hold on it's use until safer disposal methods can be foundOr, why not research improved means of handling nuclear waste, and then vote to approve the Waste Disposal Covenant?
CONCERNED with the potentially international and devastating impact of accidents involving nuclear reactors,
as above..so why continue with its use?Why not research better means to improve
NOTING that scientific advancement benefits greatly from collaboration of scientists from multiple nations,
or is that existing nuclear powers? Who will listen to the scientists from developing nations that have alternate views on power generation?The scientists at the NERC will hear out and explore all means of safely generating civilian nuclear power. Science doesn't discriminate.
Depends where you live really..

Are there some poor peasants out there who would benefit from this act or is this a means to increase the wealth of the developed nations who are over consuming their avalible resources?

Atomic energy and its (peaceful) technology, why does this need to be freely traded, shouldn't it be controlled like any class A Drug?

...

5. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of nuclear power generation technology, equipment and fissionable materials, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;
6. FURTHER REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of electrical power generated by nuclear power plants, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

So if you have nuclear power you want to be able to enforce it on other nations.. They can't so NO??
Is this the UN or the US??
No, we want to end unfair barriers in nations against foreign nuclear energy companies. This will allow for cheaper nuclear power for developing (and developed) nations. It will not require nations to use nuclear power.
Further, things can benefit poor and rich alike. Why would you deny nuclear power to poorer nations?

[ Why would you deny nuclear power to poorer nations?[/QUOTE]

Well who is to say poorer nations want or can afford nuclear power?

Surely they require cheap, sustainbale power that costs the people of the nation a minimal amount to setup and maintain?

True, Glorft, poorer nations do require a cheap, sustainable power source. And that is why this issue has to pass. After the initial cost of building a reactor, all that is required is maitenance and new fuel. While I'm not going to deny that the reactor is costly, the amount of energy produced through any type of nuclear reactor, fission or fusion, certainly trumps the amount of energy produced through any other type of method.

Also, not all nations have either the ability or natural resources to use alternative forms of energy production. Hydroelectric, solar, and wind all require at least a certain amount of natural resources in order to be considered as a viable source for power. Nuclear only requires that there is room for the reactor complex.

:sniper: I had to put this in there, I'm sorry.

Nuclear power is cheap (especially with free trade), affordable (for the sheer amount of energy put out), sustainable (all you need is a place to stick the fuel and occasional (once every 10-20 years) purchases of additional fuel), and low-maintenance (all you need are a few technicians to handle the reactor).
Further, with NERC, it will get more efficient, cheaper, more sustainable, and more low-maintenance.
And who is to say that poorer nations do not want nuclear power?

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. A number of anchient designs for reactors were exceptionally poluting, and self contanimating. Containimation spread through all parts of the system, including the turbines. As having lived in an area where "let's test fire this puppy" was a common attitude, once you flip the switch on, you have to use it or idle it. At least you can dismantle an oil plant or convert it to coal/natural gas/hydrogen.

Newer designs, however, use a double cooling system so that contaminated water does not go through the trubines. They have more efficient systems in the event of failure. You would probably have more of a threat from oil tank facilities than you would from new nuclear power plants these days. (London had a major oil tank fire a few months ago.)

As people are fond of saying NS is not the RW. Nuclear is the only practical option for my nation. I simply don't have enough space to effectively house 4.234 billion people, solar wind farms and a nice wildland to allow my pelicans to frollic, before they are then eaten as our national food source. Oil is still a major necessity for our nation because we refuse to be without dry cleaning, but nuclear is the best option.

I think this is important and cannot be understressed. Nuclear technology has greatly improved over the many decades of its existance. It is therefore vital and necessary that improvements in technology must be freely transmitted throughout the nuclear community. Old technology is bad but new technology is good. And further developments can only be better.


Umm. Actually I think we agreed here. With the sharing of newer. safer information, we can reduce the waste from the nuclear plants. I apologize if I wasn't clear.

Gloth for one will be nuclear free, and will fight for it's right to remain as such.

Nobody is going to force you to use nuclear power if you do not wish to.

First, our prime directive forbids us from sharing our technology that could be turned into a weapon.
Yet I quote Article I (2) of Resolution #151:
ARTICLE I. UN member nations shall not:
(2) Assist or induce any nation to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or control over such weapons.
Surely this includes the trade of nuclear materials and fissions that could possibly be turned into weaponry?

Yes, of course it does. That is the main point behind the statement. It is our firm belief that since any assistance we provide in developing nuclear technology can easily be converted into a weapon that under the terms of our Prime Directive, as well as those of Resolution 151 that it would be inappropriate for us to give information to another that would result in the development of nuclear technology.

However as we pointed out, Article II of Resolution 151 expressly states that nations are not forbidden from developing nuclear weapons on their own, however if this new resolution goes through a potential loop-hole develops. Observe the following fictional senario:

Nation "A" has nuclear power and weapons, Nation "B" does not.
B wants to acquire nuclear weapons, and asks A for help in acquiring them.
A knows this is banned by Resolution 151 but opts to help B get nuclear power which is actually encouraged because of:
4. ENCOURAGES the sale and transfer of nuclear power generation materials and technology between UN nations;

Now B has nuclear power, but not weapons, but:
ARTICLE III: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to share technology related to safety and security systems, guidance systems, delivery systems or any other peripheral systems not directly related to the design or manufacture of the nuclear weapon itself, provided such activities are in conformity with article I of this legislation.

So A can share it's technology regarding deilvery systems and other details regarding the missle as long as they don't tell them how to incorporate the nuclear material.
B now has nuclear power and delivery technology (sans warhead). How difficult is it really at this point to figure out how to make the bomb.

Ah, but Article I of Resolution forbids helping them acquire nuclear energy?
ARTICLE I. UN member nations shall not:
(1) Directly or indirectly transfer control or ownership of nuclear weapons to or from any nation.
(2) Assist or induce any nation to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or control over such weapons.
(3) Seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, other than for the purpose of improving the safety of the weapon.
Wrong. The new resolution bypasses this by allowing nations to say:
"My government was not assisting in the development of nuclear weapons in nation B. We were simply helping them to develop their nuclear energy program, which is perfectly legal under the terms of the Nuclear Energy Research Act. And our trade of technology was a completely unrelated issue, which we are allowed to do under the terms of Article III of Resolution 151."

Note that we will only safeguard our technology until the other nation has developed nuclear technology on their own. At that point we would be more than happy to help them with their safety technology.

Yes, of course it does. That is the main point behind the statement. It is our firm belief that since any assistance we provide in developing nuclear technology can easily be converted into a weapon that under the terms of our Prime Directive, as well as those of Resolution 151 that it would be inappropriate for us to give information to another that would result in the development of nuclear technology.

However as we pointed out, Article II of Resolution 151 expressly states that nations are not forbidden from developing nuclear weapons on their own, however if this new resolution goes through a potential loop-hole develops. Observe the following fictional senario:

Nation "A" has nuclear power and weapons, Nation "B" does not.
B wants to acquire nuclear weapons, and asks A for help in acquiring them.
A knows this is banned by Resolution 151 but opts to help B get nuclear power which is actually encouraged because of:

Now B has nuclear power, but not weapons, but:

So A can share it's technology regarding deilvery systems and other details regarding the missle as long as they don't tell them how to incorporate the nuclear material.
B now has nuclear power and delivery technology (sans warhead). How difficult is it really at this point to figure out how to make the bomb.

Ah, but Article I of Resolution forbids helping them acquire nuclear energy?

Wrong. The new resolution bypasses this by allowing nations to say:
"My government was not assisting in the development of nuclear weapons in nation B. We were simply helping them to develop their nuclear energy program, which is perfectly legal under the terms of the Nuclear Energy Research Act. And our trade of technology was a completely unrelated issue, which we are allowed to do under the terms of Article III of Resolution 151."

Note that we will only safeguard our technology until the other nation has developed nuclear technology on their own. At that point we would be more than happy to help them with their safety technology.
Non-issue; see here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10816228&postcount=71). Civilian nuclear fuel is not nearly fissionable enough for nuclear bombs. Further, NERA provides an agency, NERC, to handle nuclear energy development and research.

Non-issue; see here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10816228&postcount=71). Civilian nuclear fuel is not nearly fissionable enough for nuclear bombs. Further, NERA provides an agency, NERC, to handle nuclear energy development and research.
True. The initial state of the "civilian" nuclear fuel is not of a high enough quality to use in weapons, but once the technology to manufacture the enriched materials is acquired it is easier to make the leap to being able to creating their own weaponized materials.

You do not understand the dangers of Nuclear Power, do you! This source of energy is a high risk to the citizens and environment of our nations! Repeal this, and we will have no radioactive waste hazards plaguing our towns, nuclear meltdowns destroying our cities, and insane billionaires running chains of nuclear power plants around the nation! As a REGIONAL DELEGATE, I know what will happen. Trust me.

Apocalypse

You do not understand the dangers of Nuclear Power, do you! This source of energy is a high risk to the citizens and environment of our nations! Repeal this, and we will have no radioactive waste hazards plaguing our towns, nuclear meltdowns destroying our cities, and insane billionaires running chains of nuclear power plants around the nation! As a REGIONAL DELEGATE, I know what will happen. Trust me.

Apocalypse
Um... this isn't a repeal, this is a new resolution.

You do not understand the dangers of Nuclear Power, do you! This source of energy is a high risk to the citizens and environment of our nations! Repeal this, and we will have no radioactive waste hazards plaguing our towns, nuclear meltdowns destroying our cities, and insane billionaires running chains of nuclear power plants around the nation! As a REGIONAL DELEGATE, I know what will happen. Trust me.

Apocalypse
I'm fully aware of the risks of nuclear power. However, note that nuclear power can be made safer; as it is, in RL, there was only one serious accident (Chernobyl, which was caused b/c the Soviets had poor quality controls and b/c they were testing something). Improving plant safety is part of what NERC is for. Oh, and being a regional delegate doesn't mean that you have any more knowledge of nuclear power than others. Thanks for showing everyone the fallacy of an appeal to authority...

True. The initial state of the "civilian" nuclear fuel is not of a high enough quality to use in weapons, but once the technology to manufacture the enriched materials is acquired it is easier to make the leap to being able to creating their own weaponized materials.Enrichment to the extent required (from 2-3% to 90%) requires tech that can probably be separated from that required to enrich uranium to the 2-3% needed; the tech needed for enriching fuel to significant amounts would then go under Res. 151, rather than NERC. If you think a deal's fishy, talk to the UNFTC about it.

ok.

Forgive me, I'm not up to date with weapons or the technology. We are after all a nuclear free nation, new to the UN.

If there is free trade of nuclear technology, does this include the technology and hardware that will enable a country to enrich uranium for there own purpose?

Who is to stop each individual nation from enriching uranium to what ever level they want?

From a report commissioned for Glorth (I express my gratitude to the scientists involved)
Uranium gun-assembled weapons are the easiest of all nuclear devices to design and build. It is generally conceded to be impossible to prevent any nation having the requisite amount of HEU from building one or more gun-assembled weapons. Therefore, the acquisition of significant quantities of 235 U or a facility in which to separate the fissile material is an indicator that the acquiring state could be in the process of gaining a rudimentary nuclear capability.

If there is free trade of nuclear technology, does this include the technology and hardware that will enable a country to enrich uranium for there own purpose?
One would have to assume that yes it does.

Who is to stop each individual nation from enriching uranium to what ever level they want?
Precisely the reason why we deny all requests for the transfer of nuclear technology even if they claim it for peaceful purposes, until they develop it on their own and we can see that they are in fact using it for power generation. Even then we only transfer safety equipment.

ok.

Forgive me, I'm not up to date with weapons or the technology. We are after all a nuclear free nation, new to the UN.

If there is free trade of nuclear technology, does this include the technology and hardware that will enable a country to enrich uranium for there own purpose?

Who is to stop each individual nation from enriching uranium to what ever level they want?

From a report commissioned for Glorth (I express my gratitude to the scientists involved)
Uranium gun-assembled weapons are the easiest of all nuclear devices to design and build. It is generally conceded to be impossible to prevent any nation having the requisite amount of HEU from building one or more gun-assembled weapons. Therefore, the acquisition of significant quantities of 235 U or a facility in which to separate the fissile material is an indicator that the acquiring state could be in the process of gaining a rudimentary nuclear capability.
Nothing stops individual nations from enriching uranium, if they can do so. However, nothing in the resolution involves the means of enriching uranium. Uranium enrichment is not a means of generating nuclear power, it is not a piece of equipment needed to generate nuclear power, and it is not fissionable materials. Means of enriching uranium are therefore not covered by NERA.

Nothing stops individual nations from enriching uranium, if they can do so. However, nothing in the resolution involves the means of enriching uranium. Uranium enrichment is not a means of generating nuclear power, it is not a piece of equipment needed to generate nuclear power, and it is not fissionable materials. Means of enriching uranium are therefore not covered by NERA.
But if we are to assist other nations in developing their Nuclear Power base as this Resolution would have us do, then it seems to me that helping them to create the fuel to use in their plants would be a must, otherwise you are creating a dependancy in those nations on those who are capable of enriching uranium. And since the resolution never defines just what nuclear power generation materials and technology is, it can be interpretted as such.

But if we are to assist other nations in developing their Nuclear Power base as this Resolution would have us do, then it seems to me that helping them to create the fuel to use in their plants would be a must, otherwise you are creating a dependancy in those nations on those who are capable of enriching uranium. And since the resolution never defines just what nuclear power generation materials and technology is, it can be interpretted as such.
Except the mandatory language only covers NERC and the free trade stuff, and similar arrangements happened in RL a lot (see this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIGA)).

Except 'nuclear power generation materials and technology' implies 'materials and technology specifically used to generate nuclear power.'

Except 'nuclear power generation materials and technology' implies 'materials and technology specifically used to generate nuclear power.'
Hmm, well that is a valid interpretation. But it can be justifiably claimed that the technology to enrich uranium is critical to the process of generating nuclear power as there can be no power generation without the uranium.

Another issue is depleted uranium

As the report I discussed earlier goes on..

Depleted uranium, known as DU, is a highly dense metal that is the by product of the process during which fissionable uranium used to manufacture nuclear bombs and reactor fuel is separated from natural uranium. DU remains radioactive for about 4.5 billion years.

? can this be used in weapons

Another issue is depleted uranium

As the report I discussed earlier goes on..

Depleted uranium, known as DU, is a highly dense metal that is the by product of the process during which fissionable uranium used to manufacture nuclear bombs and reactor fuel is separated from natural uranium. DU remains radioactive for about 4.5 billion years.

? can this be used in weapons
I don't believe so, at least not in the context of a nuclear warhead. Theoretically you could place it onboard a conventional missle and have the explosion spread the DU over enemy territory, hoping the toxic material causes further (and long term) problems for them.

Hmm, well that is a valid interpretation. But it can be justifiably claimed that the technology to enrich uranium is critical to the process of generating nuclear power as there can be no power generation without the uranium.But for the fact that uranium can be acquired through easier means. Enrichment is therefore not critical, and therefore not covered under NERA.

Another issue is depleted uranium

As the report I discussed earlier goes on..

Depleted uranium, known as DU, is a highly dense metal that is the by product of the process during which fissionable uranium used to manufacture nuclear bombs and reactor fuel is separated from natural uranium. DU remains radioactive for about 4.5 billion years.

? can this be used in weaponsThank you, but that's irrelevant. DU is not covered by NERA.

I also draw your attention to UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #71

So what about nations selling yellowcake? Are they still allowed to halt trade if they believe that it will be used to create nuclear weapons?

I also draw your attention to UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #71
Attention drawn. Your point?

So what about nations selling yellowcake? Are they still allowed to halt trade if they believe that it will be used to create nuclear weapons?I don't think yellowcake applies to NERA, as it is not a nuclear fuel so much as a nuclear fuel precursor.

[Kennyesque Q&A]Added to the first post.

Don't wanna read the rest of the posts, don't wanna say too much about it.

Norderia = No
Cuz
Free trade = teh suck.

[Ambassador Ahlmann whispers to Ambassador Barfanger] Think he's been hittin' the bottle again?

[Ambassador Barfanger whispers back] At least he didn't say anything about lawn ornaments this time.

:p
*After overhearing the Ausserland delegations comments Bob sends the following message to them*

Hitting the bottle again, when does he stop? He drinks so much he may as well have an IV of alcohol put in.:p

I beg you to reconsider! Please do not vote for the pollution of the world and the damage tht wil be done to the world and small nations!
Besides, we should use other forms of energy!

I beg you to reconsider! Please do not vote for the pollution of the world and the damage tht wil be done to the world and small nations!
Besides, we should use other forms of energy!

I believe the honourable delegate is going to suggest such alternate forms of energy as wind-turbines, geothermal power sources, tide-generators and solar panels. Whilst these are all laudable in their own right and deserve their place in the fight against pollution and for renewable energy, they would be insufficiently effective to generate enough power to meet the demands of a heavily industrialised, populous and modern nation, a tag that can refer to almost all countries here.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I don't think yellowcake applies to NERA, as it is not a nuclear fuel so much as a nuclear fuel precursor.
So, am I to understand that nations are still allowed to set whatever limits they dream up to yellowcake trade?
If so, then Darsomir has no reason not to support.

"Calls upon" is not intended to order compliance, merely to encourage it; I will inform the gnomes of this fact if this resolution is passed.
My concern lingers. Certain nations may seek to exploit the ambiguity of this clause - I hope the gnomes agree with your intent and hold their nerve.

The NERC has been set up, in part, to help ensure that nuclear power becomes safer, cleaner, and of higher efficacy when compared to other means of nuclear power generation. Further, note that the resolution expressly refers to nuclear power generation, rather than power generation through nuclear fission specifically.
OOC: Yeah, it's fine - Eco doesn't have any experience of non-fission nuclear technology, however, so will remain highly sceptical.

For future reference, a protectionist measure is one that unfairly supports a domestic firm over a foreign firm. Further, note the mention of 'safer' nuclear power. 'Safer' could be defined in many ways, including safer for the world writ large. Therefore, even if Res. 151 is repealed, due to the ambiguity in 'safer,' this resolution would only encourage support to civilian nuclear technology (which is safer for the world).
I wish I shared your optimism in this regard.

OOC: I'm hungover and not in the right state of mind to deal with protectionism etc - I'll just leave this point for now and let's assume Lata said something airily dismissive. Or something. Ouch.

What sort of issue would you have with, in your own words, an "impartial commission?" After all, if a commission is impartial, then the side with the better case will win - a fair and just system.
OOC: Oh... bugger! I meant to write 'partial'. And now I've been cited in your FAQ. Argh!

Fine. I hate free trade. Why should I vote for this?One, the sector involved is, for most nations, a minor sector of the economy. Two, the length of time before free trade must be enacted in the nuclear energy sector is eleven years, while the NERC starts immediately, allowing your companies to develop better nuclear technology faster. Three, the NERC is an incredibly useful tool for the world. Four, the UNFTC is an "impartial commission" (according to Ecopoeia, no less) that can settle disputes fairly.
I woud like to make absolutely clear that Ecopoeia does not regard the UNFTC as an "impartial commission". This misunderstanding has arisen due to an unfortunate transcription error. For clarity: Ecopoeia regards the UNFTC with nothing but contempt. Had the UN established a Trade Commission with equivalent powers we would have far more faith in its ability to arbitrate fairly. However, the UN Free Trade Commission is nakedly an instrument for foisting one vision of economic policy on all UN nations. It is a disgrace.

Lata Chakrabarti

Added to the first post.
OOC: Since I'm wrongly credited in the FAQ (thanks to my own ineptitude), is it possible for the opening post to make clear that Ecopoeia does not claim UNFTC to be impartial?

... a heavily industrialised, populous and modern nation, a tag that can refer to almost all countries here ...
I disagree that "almost all" fit this description. Ecopoeia certainly does not and neither do many of its continental neighbours.

The Rogue Nation of Vispilio is against such a resolution.

The UN should not encourage any nation to divulge nuclear secrets to another nation, the call upon nations to do this is preposterous.

As a country who relies heavily upon Uranium Mining we can say that we welcome orders for Uranium, however we staunchly OPPOSE any who would seek our secrets to unlocking its powers.

Figure it out for yourselves, we most certainly will not be helping you.

Opposed.

While the aim of encouraging responsible use of nuclear energy sources and furthering research into increasing the safety of such sources as well as reducing the pollution caused by them is laudable, the very use of nuclear energy should be seen as a temporary measure to be moved away from at the earliest possible opportunity.

Hence, the parts of this resolution that will, intentionally or not, support and encourage the use of nuclear energy force us to oppose it. Specifically, this pertains to clause 4, as well as the implications of clauses 5, 6 and 7. Should the proposal be reframed as a proposal that required nations to take strong measures of safety in their use of nuclear energy as well as sharing technology to make it safer, but did not encourage the use of nuclear energy, then we would support it.

We urge the delegates to consider this in casting their votes.

Pro

The Commonwealth of Intermania believes that Nucular secrets should be able to be traded freely umong our many nations.

It is important that free trade always be allowed for the peace and prosperity of our nations.

I also believe it would be better to know who has nucular capabilities rather than to find out on the battlefield. This would make an excelent deterent to costly wars.

I have reviewed this resolution, and I will vote for it.

The Rogue Nation of Vispilio is against such a resolution.

The UN should not encourage any nation to divulge nuclear secrets to another nation, the call upon nations to do this is preposterous.

As a country who relies heavily upon Uranium Mining we can say that we welcome orders for Uranium, however we staunchly OPPOSE any who would seek our secrets to unlocking its powers.

Figure it out for yourselves, we most certainly will not be helping you.

What nuclear secrets? In our nation, much information about weaponization of nuclear material is classified, and rightly so. And, in fact, provision of that information to another nation would be a violation of NSUN Resolution #151, "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act". Information about the peaceful uses of atomic energy is unclassified, and we will be happy to share it with responsible researchers through the NERC.

We must say that we're disappointed that so many of our respected colleagues in this Assembly seem unable to grasp the fact that there is a clear and distinct difference in the technology required to generate nuclear-based power and that required to create nuclear weapons. We supported the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act and we support this resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ahem. We would thank the Ausserlander minister to stop using such big words, as we can only assume that he is insulting us.

We too voted in favor of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Act, and we can't help but be mystified by the "arguments" being proffered against this article. Yeah, like giving nations the technolgies requisite for developing nuclear fuel could possibly lend them the capacity for making nukes! Please. It really says something about a resolution's worth* when its opponents seemingly can't string together a coherent sentence against it. Even we strung a coherent sentence together once, and it killed; I mean, we totally nailed ... that guy we were debating, whoever he was. Man, we are still proud of that accomplishment!

But this debate just makes me want to rip my bright pink plastic flamingo out of my lawn and jab my eyes out with its wire feet. This is a perfectly reasonable proposal, and it bears our support. I mean, if it makes it easier for the Kawaiian scum to attain nuclear materials for supposedly "peaceful" purposes, it'll only give us more occasion to kick their kitten-lovin' asses every time they do so.

Um, yeah. We never said our position on this proposal was coherent.

We thank the deputy from the Beltway for bringing this excellent legislation to fore, and for his dedication to promoting safe nuclear-power technology exchange, and "fair" trade -- especially in light of the fact that this body still bans most fossil fuels, and smaller nations in particular are in desperate need of a replacement energy source. As such, we hereby confer upon Mr. Clinton the highly coveted Monica Lewinsky "I-Love-You-You-Big-Creep!" Gold Star, and a complimentary pair of presidential kneepads! Congratulations.

[Suddenly glances at his arm, and notices something is missing.]

Fuck! Who removed my hard-liquor IV?!!

By Order of His Total PWNership Awesomeness, the Destructor from Del Fuego, Mexico:
Jack Riley
Top Suspect on CPESL's "Most Wanted" List



* Barring, of course, the Biological Sapience proposal, which was uniquely awful.

*Sen Sulla hand over a bottle of Wild Turkey(TM) to Ambassador Riley*

Here's a new bottle,mate. You were running low.:D *looks around and clears throat.*
Anyway, as I have sat through this tedious debate, listening to the same Blah,blah,blah points, I have been instructed by my Emperor to offer this Fine Yeldan Horsewhip(TM), with the fine Yeldan Dead Horse(TM), located outside, for those members here opposed to this resolution. How many times do you clueless screwheads have to be told that this applies only to peaceful application of nuclear technology. as a matter of fact, after reading this resolution, I can only indirectly find a military use. That is research into safer, more efficient, and perhaps smaller reactors, could make nuclear propelled Naval ships more safe and efficient( and that could be a stretch).
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Does anyone honestly want to see a nuclear disaster like Chernobyl again? By trading the information for proper management of nuclear materials the world can be spared such tragedies. The entire resolution is volunteer only as well so no one is rewuired to trade their nation's "secrets".

This resolution may not directly speak of military uses, but if there is free trade of nucular technology it will make creating weapons easier for countries who other wise wouldn't have them.

This resolution may not directly speak of military uses, but if there is free trade of nucular technology it will make creating weapons easier for countries who other wise wouldn't have them.
Read FAQ (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10806081&postcount=1)on first page. See questions 2 and 3.

This resolution may not directly speak of military uses, but if there is free trade of nucular technology it will make creating weapons easier for countries who other wise wouldn't have them.

Mate, if a nation can produce Nuclear power, and if they want the Bomb, then there is very little that this resolution will help them, or this august body can do to stop them.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

"2. STRONGLY URGES UN member nations to provide assistance to the NERC;"

This is why the U.N. is so ineffective. Strongly urges. You have to make people do it or they're not going to. As far as I'm concerned, this resolution is wortheless.

NAY

Opposed.

While the aim of encouraging responsible use of nuclear energy sources and furthering research into increasing the safety of such sources as well as reducing the pollution caused by them is laudable, the very use of nuclear energy should be seen as a temporary measure to be moved away from at the earliest possible opportunity.

Why? What are any realistic clean burning alternatives to nuclear energy that can produce any useful amounts of Kilowatts? Hydro power is obviously only available to nations with sufficient water resources, and wind and solar technologies (in most NS nations anyway, I would imagine) are still in their early stages of development.

Also, let's not kid ourselves about radiation, folks. Coal burning power plants release enormous amounts of radiation themselves, and in a much less-contained manner too, by the way.

When used properly, nuclear energy is safe, reliable, and the greenest energy source out there.


Steve Perry, GCRC
President

I'm fully aware of the risks of nuclear power. However, note that nuclear power can be made safer; as it is, in RL, there was only one serious accident (Chernobyl, which was caused b/c the Soviets had poor quality controls and b/c they were testing something). Improving plant safety is part of what NERC is for. Oh, and being a regional delegate doesn't mean that you have any more knowledge of nuclear power than others. Thanks for showing everyone the fallacy of an appeal to authority...

Enrichment to the extent required (from 2-3% to 90%) requires tech that can probably be separated from that required to enrich uranium to the 2-3% needed; the tech needed for enriching fuel to significant amounts would then go under Res. 151, rather than NERC. If you think a deal's fishy, talk to the UNFTC about it.

I think this little guy says it all-

:upyours:

Now, back to the information on why not to vote yes. First of all, This creates waste such as plutonium, a very lethal (and if you come in contact with a speck of it, it will prove fatal) and deadly substance. Plutonium cannot be disposed of, dumped, or burned. What do you expect to do with all this? I think it was either Kivisto or My Travelling Harem who stated that nuclear power creates less waste that oil and coal. Seriously, stop making things up. You have know idea what the radioactive and toxic waste from these can do. The substances released can turn whole communities upside-down, destroy cities, and annihilate plant and animal life in small areas. This may seem small to some of you ignorant decision makers, and if so, than I am utterly ashamed of the people in the position of "leader" these days.
Over the years, this waste will build up, clogging your storage systems, killing off your wildlife, and wrecking your economy. It may prove a very useful and efficient source of energy, but you will come to regret the decision you have made in the years to come. Unfortunately, too many imbeciles just say "yes" to whatever resolution they see, so I am outnumbered. I am terribly sorry to those of you sensible enough to say no to this resolution, but I am afraid we must deal with it and allow our nations to deteriorate. That is all I have to say,

Apocalypse

Now, back to the information on why not to vote yes. First of all, This creates waste such as plutonium, a very lethal (and if you come in contact with a speck of it, it will prove fatal) and deadly substance. Plutonium cannot be disposed of, dumped, or burned. What do you expect to do with all this? I think it was either Kivisto or My Travelling Harem who stated that nuclear power creates less waste that oil and coal. Seriously, stop making things up. You have know idea what the radioactive and toxic waste from these can do. The substances released can turn whole communities upside-down, destroy cities, and annihilate plant and animal life in small areas. This may seem small to some of you ignorant decision makers, and if so, than I am utterly ashamed of the people in the position of "leader" these days.
Over the years, this waste will build up, clogging your storage systems, killing off your wildlife, and wrecking your economy. It may prove a very useful and efficient source of energy, but you will come to regret the decision you have made in the years to come. Unfortunately, too many imbeciles just say "yes" to whatever resolution they see, so I am outnumbered. I am terribly sorry to those of you sensible enough to say no to this resolution, but I am afraid we must deal with it and allow our nations to deteriorate. That is all I have to say,

Apocalypse
You're using scare tactics to make up for the lack of an argument. Nuclear power has been around for years; there have been accidents, but the overall impact on the environment of nuclear waste can be managed. Further, NERA aims to improve methods of storing nuclear waste so as to minimize the impact of nuclear power on the environment.
Oh, and please do not impugn the numerous proponents - and opponents, especially Ecopoeia - who argue reasonably for or against the proposed resolution.

Oh, and Pu can be disposed of; see Yucca Mountain (http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/index.shtml), for instance.

You're using scare tactics to make up for the lack of an argument. Nuclear power has been around for years; there have been accidents, but the overall impact on the environment of nuclear waste can be managed. Further, NERA aims to improve methods of storing nuclear waste so as to minimize the impact of nuclear power on the environment.
Oh, and please do not impugn the numerous proponents - and opponents, especially Ecopoeia - who argue reasonably for or against the proposed resolution.

For one thing, I do not "Impugn" anyone. And being managed? Ha! What about Three Mile Island? What about Chernobyl? The Chernobyl meltdown caused an explosion of nuclear waste that killed hundreds and hundreds of people! Many others died later of cancer from the weakening effect of the radioactive waste. I do not use scare tactics, I use facts, and as for having an argument, I say you look over my messages again. You disgust me, you and your little lies. I cannot see why so many people in positions of power have to lie to anyone the see necessarry to lie to. I'm also directing this at today's US Government, but let's not get into a whole new battle...

...as for this ridiculous resolution that you yourself posted, I would stop arguing me. I have made my point and wish to say no more. If you force me, I will begin to use even stronger logic to make my point more understandable. I wish to converse with you no longer, I do not enjoy getting angry over an idiot who thinks he has authority over me and all the others who speak in this forum. :mad: Thank you.

Apocalypse

For one thing, I do not "Impugn" anyone. And being managed? Ha! What about Three Mile Island? What about Chernobyl? The Chernobyl meltdown caused an explosion of nuclear waste that killed hundreds and hundreds of people! Many others died later of cancer from the weakening effect of the radioactive waste. I do not use scare tactics, I use facts, and as for having an argument, I say you look over my messages again. You disgust me, you and your little lies. I cannot see why so many people in positions of power have to lie to anyone the see necessarry to lie to. I'm also directing this at today's US Government, but let's not get into a whole new battle...

...as for this ridiculous resolution that you yourself posted, I would stop arguing me. I have made my point and wish to say no more. If you force me, I will begin to use even stronger logic to make my point more understandable. I wish to converse with you no longer, I do not enjoy getting angry over an idiot who thinks he has authority over me and all the others who speak in this forum. :mad: Thank you.
Stop being such a baby. This is a diplomatic forum, not a school playground. The representative of The Beltway responded to you in a perfectly civil manner - far more civil than I would have bothered with - and instead you snap back this shit at him. Look:
1. Chernobyl and 3MI used technology that is far outdated. Numerous safety checks have been implemented since then; there have been great developments in nuclear technology. This resolution is trying to increase that further: you're the ones pushing for explosions, by standing in the way of progress. Furthermore, why do those two always get so much press. What about the probably hundreds of collapses of coal mines? What about Piper Alpha gas station? Why do the anti-nuclear zealots conveniently forget to mention that "environmentally friendly" biomass reactors have blown up.
2. Yes, you did impugn people - you suggested those who voted for were "morons".
3. You are using scare tactics. You are using two terrible accidents, and saying they justify opposing the many, many safe reactors. You are using hyperbole: radioactive waste can be disposed of safely.
4. Posting an "up yours" smilie as your sole response to a reasoned argument doesn't make anyone, whichever they're voting on this proposal, think that you're the one behaving yourself.

Stop being such a baby. This is a diplomatic forum, not a school playground. The representative of The Beltway responded to you in a perfectly civil manner - far more civil than I would have bothered with - and instead you snap back this shit at him. Look:
1. Chernobyl and 3MI used technology that is far outdated. Numerous safety checks have been implemented since then; there have been great developments in nuclear technology. This resolution is trying to increase that further: you're the ones pushing for explosions, by standing in the way of progress. Furthermore, why do those two always get so much press. What about the probably hundreds of collapses of coal mines? What about Piper Alpha gas station? Why do the anti-nuclear zealots conveniently forget to mention that "environmentally friendly" biomass reactors have blown up.
2. Yes, you did impugn people - you suggested those who voted for were "morons".
3. You are using scare tactics. You are using two terrible accidents, and saying they justify opposing the many, many safe reactors. You are using hyperbole: radioactive waste can be disposed of safely.
4. Posting an "up yours" smilie as your sole response to a reasoned argument doesn't make anyone, whichever they're voting on this proposal, think that you're the one behaving yourself.

Ahh, the impugn matter... ...the thing is, I didn't use specific names. And another thing, I wish not to use oil or coal either. If we could find more environmentally friendly power sources, such as hydro-electric power, solar, and wind, our land would be much better off. I don't want to read most of your message, because I'm sure it doesn't even make much sense. It's not like I want to read some the "Shit snapped" at me. Heh. Swearing just makes you sound even dumber, you know.

we need to have nucluar plants that way when we go to war with another nation we can just bomb their power plants and then save our own nukes for other annoying things like protesters and all that nasty stuff

Ahh, the impugn matter... ...the thing is, I didn't use specific names.
You said:

Unfortunately, too many imbeciles just say "yes" to whatever resolution they see, so I am outnumbered. I am terribly sorry to those of you sensible enough to say no to this resolution, but I am afraid we must deal with it and allow our nations to deteriorate.
That it's generalised and vague doesn't make it any less of a smear.

And another thing, I wish not to use oil or coal either. If we could find more environmentally friendly power sources, such as hydro-electric power, solar, and wind, our land would be much better off.
See, this is what I don't understand. You have a viable alternative to fossil fuels: nuclear power. In terms of carbon emission, for example, nuclear power is more environmentally friendly than hydrogen power, because hydrogen power requires so much energy in cell manufacture, at current levels. If you're so determined to find alternatives to fossil fuels, why not improve nuclear safety? This proposal doesn't force you, or anyone, to use nuclear power. It does, however, allow for a greater exchange of technologies likely to prevent nuclear accidents. And you oppose that? Why do you hate nature?

I don't want to read most of your message, because I'm sure it doesn't even make much sense. It's not like I want to read some the "Shit snapped" at me. Heh. Swearing just makes you sound even dumber, you know.
How fucking clever of you.

I'd also note that the total radiation per person released by the 3MI accident was about the amount in a chest x-ray. Accidents are rare, and most are mild, and this resolution will help reduce them.

I am torn with this resolution.

On the one hand, I like the idea of it with the research ect, but on the other hand I don't like the un-necessary free trade bits stuffed into the middle of it.

So I have decided to abstain, unless the apathetic UN members of my region wake up long enough to let me know they have a preference one way or the other, and I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Waterana -
Free trade was included for two reasons: one (OOC), b/c otherwise I couldn't find a category for this, and two (IC), b/c free trade means that corporations will be able to more effectively boost research efforts into nuclear energy and thus help NERC more.

nuclear waste is the cleanest burning power source known to mankind. it neither damages the enviornment, nor produces that much waste, and the waste it does produce isnt too much. it produces the most energy for the dollar, and it produces it fast. the only accidents that are casued are done by carelessness. saying that a nuclear power plant pollutes is true, but it does so in nominal amounts. look at cows, for instance. a cow produces more methane gas than we know what to do with, and a cow is worse for our atmosphere than a car, you dont see a bunch of damn dirty tree hugging hippies trying to make cows illegal, do you? you see them trying to save them. another example, is the herring. a school of herring produces more methane gas than a city. so, you want to talk about pollution, nuclear waste is nominal, and the risks involved are tied to the carelessness of the country. i strongly urge you to rethink the proposal.


~ bobweiser, gatesville :mp5:

For one thing, I do not "Impugn" anyone. And being managed? Ha! What about Three Mile Island? What about Chernobyl? The Chernobyl meltdown caused an explosion of nuclear waste that killed hundreds and hundreds of people! Many others died later of cancer from the weakening effect of the radioactive waste. I do not use scare tactics, I use facts, and as for having an argument, I say you look over my messages again. You disgust me, you and your little lies. I cannot see why so many people in positions of power have to lie to anyone the see necessarry to lie to. I'm also directing this at today's US Government, but let's not get into a whole new battle...

...as for this ridiculous resolution that you yourself posted, I would stop arguing me. I have made my point and wish to say no more. If you force me, I will begin to use even stronger logic to make my point more understandable. I wish to converse with you no longer, I do not enjoy getting angry over an idiot who thinks he has authority over me and all the others who speak in this forum. :mad: Thank you.

Apocalypse

We are very pleased that the representative of Apocalypston has decided to say no more. His behavior in this debate has been both childish and churlish -- a disgrace to these halls.

There are valid arguments to be made against this proposal. We believe its merits outweigh any potential problems, but we respect the concerns of those who have put forth thoughtful and considered objections. Calling people "imbeciles" and "idiots". is a whole different matter.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

For one thing, I do not "Impugn" anyone. And being managed? Ha! What about Three Mile Island? What about Chernobyl? The Chernobyl meltdown caused an explosion of nuclear waste that killed hundreds and hundreds of people! Many others died later of cancer from the weakening effect of the radioactive waste. I do not use scare tactics, I use facts, and as for having an argument, I say you look over my messages again. You disgust me, you and your little lies. I cannot see why so many people in positions of power have to lie to anyone the see necessarry to lie to. I'm also directing this at today's US Government, but let's not get into a whole new battle...

...as for this ridiculous resolution that you yourself posted, I would stop arguing me. I have made my point and wish to say no more. If you force me, I will begin to use even stronger logic to make my point more understandable. I wish to converse with you no longer, I do not enjoy getting angry over an idiot who thinks he has authority over me and all the others who speak in this forum. :mad: Thank you.

Apocalypse

We are very pleased that the representative of Apocalypston has decided to say no more. His behavior in this debate has been both childish and churlish -- a disgrace to these halls.

There are valid arguments to be made against this proposal. We believe its merits outweigh any potential problems, but we respect the concerns of those who have put forth thoughtful and considered objections. Calling people "imbeciles" and "idiots". is a whole different matter.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

nuclear waste is the cleanest burning power source known to mankind. it neither damages the enviornment, nor produces that much waste, and the waste it does produce isnt too much. it produces the most energy for the dollar, and it produces it fast. the only accidents that are casued are done by carelessness. saying that a nuclear power plant pollutes is true, but it does so in nominal amounts. look at cows, for instance. a cow produces more methane gas than we know what to do with, and a cow is worse for our atmosphere than a car, you dont see a bunch of damn dirty tree hugging hippies trying to make cows illegal, do you? you see them trying to save them. another example, is the herring. a school of herring produces more methane gas than a city. so, you want to talk about pollution, nuclear waste is nominal, and the risks involved are tied to the carelessness of the country. i strongly urge you to rethink the proposal.


~ bobweiser, gatesville :mp5:I'm glad that the honorable representative, unlike most of the members of his region, has managed to put some thought into this proposal. We imagine gatesville will be voting no virtually en masse -- and not on any of the merits or demerits of the actual text. But that is to be expected.

[Shouts "Idiot! Imbecile!" in Minister Olembe's general direction before racing from the hall.]

Nuclear Waste?:

Bobwiser:
Where is nuclear waste used as an energy source? I have not heard of this. If this is true I would like to know more about it. Also where do you get the information about its cleanliness?

The Resolution:

In the short term, I feel that nuclear power is the answer. In fact it has been the answer for decades. I do have concerns that this is going to be a long term crutch. I am all for fixing the problems of today now, but nuclear waste is a long term problem with no solution. If we build up nuclear power, years from now, when alternative energy is a real viable alternative, who will stop the corporations producing nuclear energy from pushing alternative energy away from the table. This is what coal and oil did to nuclear when it was emerging.
In no way am I knocking big business. The goal of the game of supply and demand in free markets is to beat the competitor. This system does not work, however when the eggs are all in one basket. If the UN supports the resolution in this manor, we will be doing just this. The basket with all the eggs will have power – the UN will have none. The time for diversification is now. Failure to do this will ensure that our children will face more energy crises.
Terrenus does not oppose the resolution, but cautions that further action is mandatory.

ooc: Eco: FAQ changed.

IC:

How many times do you clueless screwheads have to be told...I like this guy.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
UN Ambassador
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

nuclear waste is the cleanest burning power source known to mankind. it neither damages the enviornment, nor produces that much waste, and the waste it does produce isnt too much. it produces the most energy for the dollar, and it produces it fast. the only accidents that are casued are done by carelessness. saying that a nuclear power plant pollutes is true, but it does so in nominal amounts. look at cows, for instance. a cow produces more methane gas than we know what to do with, and a cow is worse for our atmosphere than a car, you dont see a bunch of damn dirty tree hugging hippies trying to make cows illegal, do you? you see them trying to save them. another example, is the herring. a school of herring produces more methane gas than a city. so, you want to talk about pollution, nuclear waste is nominal, and the risks involved are tied to the carelessness of the country. i strongly urge you to rethink the proposal.

You cannot honestly hope to compare methane to nuclear waste. Methane is not a problem in the atmosphere. The methane emitted is reabsorbed into the carbon cycle. And it seems that you are destroying your own argument by showing that nature produces more of it than humanity. The whole greenhouse "problem" is not a problem at all, and I could show you the data to confirm this, but that is a subject for another debate.

How often do you see nuclear waste produced in nature? Never. So you cannot say that the waste of nuclear reactions is not harmful. The nuclear waste we are now creating will last about 3 times longer than civilization itself has existed up to this point. No matter how careful today's governments are in containing it, the chances of any of our civilizations surviving for long enough to see this stuff safe is slim at best. And even if they do, how likely is it that we'll remember where we put all of the material?

No, nuclear waste is by far the most dangerous material produced by mankind today. And no amount of badmouthing of animals that have lived in equilibrium with nature for thousands of years will change that.



On a completely different note:
Doctor Denis Leary
UN Ambassador
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack
Doctor Denis Leary is a miracle worker. He cured thousands of depressed patients in our country with his revolutionary "shut the f*$# up" therapy.

Bless you Doctor Leary, a saint among men

ooc: Eco: FAQ changed.
OOC: Thanks, much appreciated.

The Beltway, you're still fully entitles to exploit my stupidity if you wish. It's only fair!

1. Chernobyl and 3MI used technology that is far outdated. Numerous safety checks have been implemented since then;

The biggest reasons for Chernobyl was flawed reactor design, and operator incompetence.
The reactor was designed to be able to produce weapon's grade fissibles, which made it more unstable. The control rods that were used to control the reaction, including emergency shutdown, had the rather unpleasant side effect that they caused a spike in production before the production in the reactor actually started to slow down.
The operators were going to conduct a test, and had powered down the minimum safe level of operation, but were interrupted by a call saying that the power situation in the country required them to increase power for a few hours. After this, they started to increase power. When the power situation in the country returned to normal again, they decreased power again. This up and down powering makes this type of reactor even harder to control, and what's worse they had previous disabled the safety fallbacks. What they were about to do now sounds even more insane. They cut their internal power, to see if the residual rotational energy in the generator could provide enough power for the cooling systems.

So lets summarize the events so far... A reactor requiring constant adjustment and tuning has the safeties disabled, then the operators open and close the throttles recklessly, and THEN, when the reactor is at its most unstable state, cuts internal power for a test.

Once the emergency stop was called, it was too late. The control rods actually INCREASED output instead of decreasing. The graphite moderator (regular civilian plants don't use graphite) caught fire, and the reactor building exploded.

Ultimately, the accident was caused by a flawed design, and incompetent operating crew.

The idea of restricting information and technology for building better powerplants, and improving existing ones, seems insane.

you're the ones pushing for explosions, by standing in the way of progress.


Quite.


Furthermore, why do those two always get so much press. What about the probably hundreds of collapses of coal mines? What about Piper Alpha gas station?


Don't forget the London oil depot explosion. Luckily human loss was avoided, but the toxic cloud darked out the sun for days.


Edit: spelling

Yet again, human loss is mentioned...if human loss, or for that matter, any life form losing the sweet taste of life is WRONG! *bangs fist on table* We shouldn't do ANYTHING that could cause unreasonable human loss. I still vote "yes" on justifiable homicide, but not on this. You could lose hundreds, even thousands of workers that work in a nuclear energy power plant, just because Joe Nobody missed the ash tray on the way out the door.

(i had no clue I could be that serious)

Nuclear Waste?:
Where is nuclear waste used as an energy source? I have not heard of this. If this is true I would like to know more about it. Also where do you get the information about its cleanliness?


Atleast the plutonium waste can be reused as fuel for nuclear reactors, when mixed with natural uranium or depleted uranium. This is called MOX Fuel.

The technology to recycle the nuclear waste is however also suitable for weapon's production. Obviously, only countries with nuclear weapon's technology thus produce this fuel, but the resulting fuel is sold to countries without nuclear weapons technology, as the recycled fuel itself is specifically designed to be equivalent to low enriched uranium, so that it can be used in existing civilian reactors. The fuel is thus not usable for weapons production.

MOX fuel, you say? Hmm...so, it cannot be used as a nuclear weapon in ANY way?

The Chernobyl accident in 1986 has so far killed 150 people. The number varies between different sources.

Since 1986, accidents with other forms of energy:

Coal: 2151
Oil & gas: 2447
Hydropower: 116

Especially hydropower has become safer, 1979-1985, the most dangerous form of energy when measured by this metric was hydropower. I'm surprised myself, but when a hydroelectric dam breaks, the large mass of rushing water is a devastating force.

The list I used only mentioned larger accidents.

Especially coal is hazardous. The global death-toll due to coal accidents is over 5000/year!

MOX fuel, you say? Hmm...so, it cannot be used as a nuclear weapon in ANY way?

It has the same charachteristics as regular low-enriched uranium fuel. The amount of fissibles in the fuel is too low to be used in a bomb.

I believe this MOX fuel may be our best bet if we use Nuclear Energy. But I still think it should be a nation's choice to whether or not they wish to use nuclear energy. Hydropower WOULD be one of our best bets...

It is the nation's own choice whether to use nuclear power or not.

A pleasant side effect of recycling the waste, is that the amount of waste with current recycling, is reduced significantly.

With boosted reseach in this area, new recycling methods will hopefully be developed, which will reduce the amount of waste even further. Eventually perhaps even to the point where no waste will be produced at all, i.e. nuclear power that uses fusion instead of fission.

Even nuclear fusion produces nuclear waste.

Nuclear Energy can´t controll by mankind.

We only have Uran for 50 years from now.

After that we need to find new ways.

This way we have to go now and not in 50 years.

Yet again, human loss is mentioned...if human loss, or for that matter, any life form losing the sweet taste of life is WRONG! *bangs fist on table* We shouldn't do ANYTHING that could cause unreasonable human loss. I still vote "yes" on justifiable homicide, but not on this. You could lose hundreds, even thousands of workers that work in a nuclear energy power plant, just because Joe Nobody missed the ash tray on the way out the door.

(i had no clue I could be that serious)

Enough already, troll.

The graffiti moderator (regular civilian plants don't use graffiti) caught fire, and the reactor building exploded.


I think that it's "graphite moderator" rather than "grafitti moderator", although admittedly the latter sounds like an intriguing concept... ;)

Yes, sorry, you are right. Graphite. My mistake comes from 'graphite' being 'grafit' in my native language. Apologies.

As for the 50 years of Uranium left, this is what recycling of the fuel will extend. There are also many countries currently researching new reactor types that will be able to transform the non-fissible U-238 into fissible materials. For example, the FBR type reactor, consumes less fissible materials than it produces, PLUS it also produces electricity.

Most reactors were decomissioned, as new and cheap Uranium discoveries were made. A few new reactors are however planned for research purposes, and future need. RL Japan strives to become completely independent from foreign Uranium shipments, for example.

It´s not very realistic.
It had been tryed by many countrys, bot noone reached it.

But it´s not only that.

What about the atomic waste?
You need to safe it many years!

OOC:
Just want to check something -
Are nations still allowed to forbid the trading of fissionable materials if they believe that the buyer will actually be using the material for nuclear weapons, despite assurances to the contrary? Yes, nations have the right to possess nukes, but that doesn't mean we need to help them get them.

I'd assume that this was required, because of resolution #151.

why don't we just take all of our reused waste and launched it to the nearest star system, we know there is no intelligent life in this galaxy ecxept us. it shoulding hurt us and it would give more fuel to the sun to burn. the sun as we see it has 5 billion years left of hygrogen to burn. lets launch our non-reusable nuclear waste into the sun?
what do you all think?

Norte AM']why don't we just take all of our reused waste and launched it to the nearest star system, we know there is no intelligent life in this galaxy ecxept us. it shoulding hurt us and it would give more fuel to the sun to burn. the sun as we see it has 5 billion years left of hygrogen to burn. lets launch our non-reusable nuclear waste into the sun?
what do you all think?

OOC: I wish I had the RAH quote from Expanded Universe about this one.

IC. *sits stunned and speechless*

Norte AM']why don't we just take all of our reused waste and launched it to the nearest star system, we know there is no intelligent life in this galaxy ecxept us. it shoulding hurt us and it would give more fuel to the sun to burn. the sun as we see it has 5 billion years left of hygrogen to burn. lets launch our non-reusable nuclear waste into the sun?
what do you all think?
OOC: Oh how I wish DLE was still around for times like this.

It would need very much energy to put the atomic waste in the sun and it would cost a lot.

It give cheaper ways!

-> Renewables!

The President of The Fedaration on Monumental Proportions hereby votes for this campaign.

Norte AM']why don't we just take all of our reused waste and launched it to the nearest star system, we know there is no intelligent life in this galaxy ecxept us. it shoulding hurt us and it would give more fuel to the sun to burn. the sun as we see it has 5 billion years left of hygrogen to burn. lets launch our non-reusable nuclear waste into the sun?
what do you all think?
First, how can you be so sure there is no one else out there?

Second, our starships have found other sentient life in the universe.

Third, stars burn hydrogen fuel, not depleted uranium. In fact a star is incapable of using any element heavier than iron in a fusion reaction. By launching our nuclear waste into a star we would be actually shortening the life of it. Not by much mind you, but it would not extend it's life. Even if you added more hydrogen to the star you would not be able to extend it's life, you would be once again shortening it, because the increased mass would require the star to burn its fuel at a faster rate. The only way to lengthen the life of a star would be to remove hydrogen from it (as long as you leave enough for critical mass), but that causes problems on it's own by screwing up the orbits of the planets (star suddenly has less mass, planets escape orbit and fly off to a cold death in interstellar space. It suddenly has more mass and the planets spiral down into the burning ball of ionized gas.

Well there's my rant on that for now, remember just because you think of space as a vast empty region sutable for you to dump your garbage in doesn't mean that it is. The universe is as much our home as this planet and we can not just let it be destroyed. Ultimately if humanity is going to survive we must turn to the stars.

Norte AM']why don't we just take all of our reused waste and launched it to the nearest star system, we know there is no intelligent life in this galaxy ecxept us. it shoulding hurt us and it would give more fuel to the sun to burn. the sun as we see it has 5 billion years left of hygrogen to burn. lets launch our non-reusable nuclear waste into the sun?
what do you all think?
Because of what could happen if the rocket fails on liftoff. I doubt anyone wants a rocket full of nuclear waste exploding in the atmosphere...

Nuclear waste should be stored in a single facility on the moon. (Located in a convient location so that any accidents would send the moon off into space and not crashing into the earth.) Then the UN could establish a base on the moon to coordinate the waste, and assign Martin Landau as it's commander, with Barbera Bane as his sexy science officer ... am I showing my are here. Well :p

They have never made cooler landing ships than the ones on Space 1999.

*snip*

They have never made cooler landing ships than the ones on Space 1999.

I loved that freakin' show when I was a kid. :D

If we were to place nuclear waste on the moon, would it be a bad idea to place ALL waste on the moon? Anything that blows up if we burn it, I mean.

Norte AM']why don't we just take all of our reused waste and launched it to the nearest star system, we know there is no intelligent life in this galaxy ecxept us. it shoulding hurt us and it would give more fuel to the sun to burn. the sun as we see it has 5 billion years left of hygrogen to burn. lets launch our non-reusable nuclear waste into the sun?
what do you all think?

Lauching our waste into space would be incredibly expensive. As another poster said, it wouldn't add any fuel to the sun. Also, it would suck if a rocket full of highly radioactive waste lost tiles and blew up in the atmosphere. Lastly, for anything less than a rich MT first-world nation, it would be totally unfeasable.

I think this little guy says it all-

:upyours:


How very eloquent. You done yet, son?

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpghttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png

Congratulations! A 4 to 1 pass margin as of now. Brilliant!

-- Magister Jubal

Now, back to the information on why not to vote yes. First of all, This creates waste such as plutonium, a very lethal (and if you come in contact with a speck of it, it will prove fatal) and deadly substance. Plutonium cannot be disposed of, dumped, or burned. What do you expect to do with all this? I think it was either Kivisto or My Travelling Harem who stated that nuclear power creates less waste that oil and coal. Seriously, stop making things up. You have know idea what the radioactive and toxic waste from these can do. The substances released can turn whole communities upside-down, destroy cities, and annihilate plant and animal life in small areas. This may seem small to some of you ignorant decision makers, and if so, than I am utterly ashamed of the people in the position of "leader" these days.
Over the years, this waste will build up, clogging your storage systems, killing off your wildlife, and wrecking your economy. It may prove a very useful and efficient source of energy, but you will come to regret the decision you have made in the years to come. Unfortunately, too many imbeciles just say "yes" to whatever resolution they see, so I am outnumbered. I am terribly sorry to those of you sensible enough to say no to this resolution, but I am afraid we must deal with it and allow our nations to deteriorate. That is all I have to say,

Apocalypse

I guess you weren't done yet. I somewhat doubt that that was all you have to say, though I do greatly thank you for saying it. Seriously. No kidding. You just summed up some phenomenal reasons why we should all do our best to share our information and technologies to try and make these processes safer to use.

Your vote says no, but your words say yes.


http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpghttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png

For one thing, I do not "Impugn" anyone.

Actually, you did. Me. I don't take it personally, since you apparently can't remember what you yourself said. And somehow I knew you weren't done yet.
And being managed? Ha! What about Three Mile Island? What about Chernobyl? The Chernobyl meltdown caused an explosion of nuclear waste that killed hundreds and hundreds of people! Many others died later of cancer from the weakening effect of the radioactive waste.

See my previous post. You're only strengthening our side for us.

I do not use scare tactics, I use facts, and as for having an argument, I say you look over my messages again.

I just did. You use facts distorted to seem unappealing and frightening and atrocious. Scare tactics.

You disgust me, you and your little lies.

Which ones would those be?

I cannot see why so many people in positions of power have to lie to anyone the see necessarry to lie to.

We'll start with the fact that the author of this resolution has done his best to back up all of his arguments with facts, which you have failed to do yourself. On the unrelated matter of "why people ... have to lie anyone the[sic] see necessarry[sic] to lie to", it would stand to reason that any individual (in position of power or not) who felt it necessary to lie to someone would feel that they had to. those words being very close to synonymous.

I'm also directing this at today's US Government, but let's not get into a whole new battle...

Then why bring it up?

...as for this ridiculous resolution that you yourself posted, I would stop arguing me. I have made my point and wish to say no more.

Then stop talking.

If you force me, I will begin to use even stronger logic to make my point more understandable.

Firstly, nobody is forcing you to do anything. You claim to have said your piece and we were happy with that. You keep talking all of your own accord.

Secondly, logic is absolute. It either is or isn't. Logic does not have varying degrees of strength. People are capable of thinking along varying degrees of logicality, but actual logic is one of the few black and white concepts in this universe. It is also something you have not actually been utilizing during this discussion.

Thirdly, your point is very clear and understandable. You are terrified of nuclear power for various reasons. Strong enough is the fear in you that you are desperately attempting to bolster that fear in others so that you won't feel all alone.

I wish to converse with you no longer,

Then stop talking.

I do not enjoy getting angry over an idiot who thinks he has authority over me and all the others who speak in this forum. :mad:

Not one single person here has claimed authority, dominion, or power over you in any way shape or form. Are we reading the same thread?


http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpghttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png

Ahh, the impugn matter... ...the thing is, I didn't use specific names. And another thing, I wish not to use oil or coal either. If we could find more environmentally friendly power sources, such as hydro-electric power, solar, and wind, our land would be much better off. I don't want to read most of your message, because I'm sure it doesn't even make much sense. It's not like I want to read some the "Shit snapped" at me. Heh. Swearing just makes you sound even dumber, you know.


So you're still talking?

You're admitting to not even reading or attempting to make sense out of a response to your statements, and the best you can come up with is childish insults.

Go away, troll.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpghttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png

Yet again, human loss is mentioned...if human loss, or for that matter, any life form losing the sweet taste of life is WRONG! *bangs fist on table* We shouldn't do ANYTHING that could cause unreasonable human loss. I still vote "yes" on justifiable homicide, but not on this. You could lose hundreds, even thousands of workers that work in a nuclear energy power plant, just because Joe Nobody missed the ash tray on the way out the door.

(i had no clue I could be that serious)


THAT was serious? Seriously?

We're trying to cut down on the accidents that will cause thousands of lives and you're against?

Uh.... Okay.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpghttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png

Although I have voted for this. How do you think this will affect the environment in my country? I am curious.

Nuclear waste should be stored in a single facility on the moon. (Located in a convient location so that any accidents would send the moon off into space and not crashing into the earth.) Then the UN could establish a base on the moon to coordinate the waste, and assign Martin Landau as it's commander, with Barbera Bane as his sexy science officer ... am I showing my are here. Well :p

They have never made cooler landing ships than the ones on Space 1999.

Whoa! What about Tycho City, and New Berlin? And please tell me you're going nowhere near Lake Armstrong with this proposal. There are 50 million people who are either already, or are in the process of being transfered to these colonies up there. Destroy the moon with your waste and those lives are on your conscience.

Although I have voted for this. How do you think this will affect the environment in my country? I am curious.
It could have anywhere from no impact (if you ban nuclear power or simply don't buy nuclear plants) to a minor benefit (if you get electricity from nuclear plants (yours or foreign) rather than coal/oil/natural gas) to a minor loss (slight radiation leaks into rivers have occurred at nuclear power plants). The fact is, however, that this resolution is neutral towards the environment, primarily due to the lack of any requirement that a nation adopt nuclear power. It is up to individual nations themselves to decide how much they wish to participate in NERC and how they will handle free trade in civilian nuclear power.

Proliferation of Nuclear Energy/Weapons solves all war. If we allow this resolution to pass everyone essentially can have nuclear weapons while none will have the balls to use them due to the fact that they will be bombarded with a plethora of nuclear missiles themselves.

It´s not very realistic.
It had been tryed by many countrys, bot noone reached it.

What are you referring to here? Breeding? Waste reprocessing? There are both old plants and existing plants that have done and do both of those. There are new plants being constructed to further research this. With added cooperation in this area between the nations, the success of such reactors will only increase, as they become more efficient.


Proliferation of Nuclear Energy/Weapons solves all war. If we allow this resolution to pass everyone essentially can have nuclear weapons


I would ask you to explain and motivate, exactly WHY and HOW passing this resolution would allow everyone to have nuclear weapons.

For what little it matters, opposed, on the grounds of nuclear proliferation. We seem to be about fifty-three years behind the "real life" United Nations.

For what little it matters, opposed, on the grounds of nuclear proliferation.Er... the UN has already addressed (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=150) that.

ooc: (i'm getting really tired of the nog, troll, snip crap. cut it the he!! out. just because my beliefs may not be popular, convince me otherwise, don't insult me dumb@$$...that's the only flaw in nationstates, the members are all @$$holes...)

@ Tionisla

I think you mean the "Schneller Brüter"-tecnology.

Many countrys had tryed to develop this tecnology.

But noone get it fully developed.

It was a dream of cheap, endless energy, but it´s not realistic.

And what about the atomic waste recycling today. It produces a lot atomic water every day, which get into the sea.

Atomic Power should be forbid!

Whoa! What about Tycho City, and New Berlin? And please tell me you're going nowhere near Lake Armstrong with this proposal. There are 50 million people who are either already, or are in the process of being transfered to these colonies up there. Destroy the moon with your waste and those lives are on your conscience.

Hey they managed to survice 2 whole seasons after the accident. But all kidding aside, nuclear waste doesn't explode. Contamination effects of nuclear waste are minor compared to general solar flare days. Tycho City, New Berlin, and the entire Lake Armstrong colony are built against stronger stuff than spent nuclear fuel and long lived isotopes.

(i'm getting really tired of the nog, troll, snip crap. cut it the he!! out. just because my beliefs may not be popular, convince me otherwise, don't insult me dumb@$$...that's the only flaw in nationstates, the members are all @$$holes...)
Out Of Character (OOC): I'd assumed your comments were in-character (IC), in which case the 'troll' accusation was unfair. Now I'm not so sure. Friendly advice: just be careful with your posts. Make it clear who's talking: you or your character. Once you're 'established' this won't be necessary but it's often hard to tell with newcomers.

Hey they managed to survice 2 whole seasons after the accident. But all kidding aside, nuclear waste doesn't explode. Contamination effects of nuclear waste are minor compared to general solar flare days. Tycho City, New Berlin, and the entire Lake Armstrong colony are built against stronger stuff than spent nuclear fuel and long lived isotopes.
But Ecopoeia, for example, isn't.

But Ecopoeia, for example, isn't.

Well I'd never expect to store nuclear waste in the clouds anyway. :p

But don't feel bad, I think there's a waste resolution in the queue I believe. That will be the occasion to put Ecopoeia on the hot spot. I hear the nations below are complaing about teh "yellow snow" from the nations above. :p

Why the proposal isn't right

Nuclear Energy Research Act
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
-- no comment, that 'd be throwing a flamewar
Strength: Strong
-- from NSUN ? Shouldn't be, but there may be an exception
Proposed by: The Beltway

Description: (Co-authored by Yelda)

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

APPLAUDING the passage of Resolution #151 “Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act,”

BELIEVING the benefits of peaceful atomic energy technology should be available to all UN member nations,

That is: IF there are "benefits of peaceful atomic energy".
Well, I will understand "atomic energy" in the popular sense of "generated in nuclear power plants", and not in the more exact sense of "energy that comes in tiny parcels". That is just to be clear what we 're talking about.

One "benefit" of it, is that it gives very big powers to (always growing and consolidating) industrial "groups". Wether that is a benefit though, rests to be proven. If I look into the outer world, that is the "real world" outside Nation States, I see the big-biggers-biggest Russian corporations have either collapsed or been taken over by maffiavellistic groups. The big-bigger-biggest "capitalistic" corporations either collapse when greed goes right to the top, or they are slowly becoming less and less "democratic" and ... no, maffiavelli isn't far either.
Does big-money-nuclear-energy have other benefits than concentrating power ?


AFFIRMING the right of UN member nations to exchange scientific information on the peaceful application of atomic energy,

Oh, exchange won't be a problem. As always: who finds something "for" something will be able to exchange. That's the definition of trade in a nutshell.
-- As cosy as nutshells may be we often trade outside the nutshell, because our stuff isn't small enough to trade easily within the nutshell.--
Can NS-UN be ever strong enough to really limit trading, and trading of information / science is still harder to limit. So what does this "affirmation" change ?


NOTING that scientific advancement benefits greatly from collaboration of scientists from multiple nations,

Did we ever try to organise this in NationStates ? We didn't get "issues" -yet- covering science or scientific collaboration. ( Will that be "collaboration with the enemy" or with the gouvernment ? )


CONCERNED with the potentially international and devastating impact of accidents involving nuclear reactors,

How will nuclear reactors (within NS still to be built, promoted etc) "impact" our virtual world? We 're ruled by the laws of bits and bytes, of bandwith and representation, but HOW can this world be impacted by "nuclear reactors" ? And will these have accidents, or will they be confined to "user space", thus only impacting $HOME territories instead of "international" stuff ?

ACKNOWLEDGING that current techniques for disposal of nuclear waste materials are often lacking;

Where in NationStates did we encounter large piles of nuclear waste?
This affirmation seems to be a "Real World" observation, and as such doesn't have value in NS.
Wether the affirmation be true in the REAL world outside NS ... is issue of public debate all over Europe. But Europe as well is OUTSIDE NS

RECOGNIZING the threat of terrorist attacks on nuclear reactors,

Why always give terrorists credit for the despair that governments induce already? Look at the recurrent tax bills.

DECLARING that all UN member nations are entitled to participate in the free trade of fissionable materials used in said technological applications,

HEREBY:

1. ESTABLISHES the Nuclear Energy Research Commission (NERC), mandated to:
I - Coordinate research into safer and more efficient methods of nuclear power generation,
II - Coordinate research into safer means of nuclear waste disposal,
III - Support efforts to improve the security of nuclear plants;

2. STRONGLY URGES UN member nations to provide assistance to the NERC;

3. CALLS UPON UN member nations to conduct research into safer and more efficient methods of nuclear power generation, especially when such research is not already being conducted by other entities;

That NERC is a double-edged sword, but if it's implemented wisely, it has positive potential.
Well, the whole resolution has one -single- pro, indeed: call for gouvernment funding of science. Pity that it's through the utilitarian canal of "we need results, fast"


4. ENCOURAGES the sale and transfer of nuclear power generation materials and technology between UN nations;

Of course, go on, encourage sales and put your head in the sand. Passing around all of the stuff will only frighten your own populations. THEY will have to live with the "fear - uncertainty - doubt" spread by the allies of terror. It need not be true that nuclear stuff be dangerous, it only needs repating that to frighten people. If that repetition is willfully accompanied by government denial of the danger, or by govt acting as if they are handling peanuts (who kill as well: choke on them, have an allergy ...) the population is NOT reassured.


5. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of nuclear power generation technology, equipment and fissionable materials, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

As long as we don't have much of an industry, let alone a nuclear one, we cannot put up "protectionist" devices. So this doesn't affect us. But the situation can change, and those already having said industry will be allowed another 11 years to go on "protectionisting" ... guess who wrote the proposal ?


6. FURTHER REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of electrical power generated by nuclear power plants, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

That's laughable. We hardly need "electricity" from abroad, as our numerous windpower, biogas, hydrolic power (we use the archimedes screws to pump the rivers "upstream" and have them flow down multiple times) and the very small amounts of energy needed by our "industry" (hihi, the lemonade selling tenyearolds) don't put us in any position to "restrict trade": if not imported for free, we won't need to "stp" the importation. Otoh, if "foreigners" would try to POLLUTE our fine countrysides by dumping their subsidized nuclear electricity ... but NSUN has rules against dumping.


7. EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-member nations to prevent price dumping;

We 'll use the same tools agains member nations. Price dumping will NOT be allowed. We won't allow any dumping at all, unless it's the type of dumping we ask for ( e.g. if our parliament would ask other countries to use our ample free space for waste disposal, at a high price of course, that will be a dumping we asked )


8. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any trade disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this legislation.

Doesn't bother us. We will not challenge "this legislation" lightly, and if/when, we'll have sound arguments to convince the commission. Well, of course, IF (and only if) the commission isn't a NS counterpart of the RL one. That is: it may be an impartial commission all the way, but if it makes itself APPEAR as biased, we 'll find a workaround.

Well I'd never expect to store nuclear waste in the clouds anyway. :p

But don't feel bad, I think there's a waste resolution in the queue I believe. That will be the occasion to put Ecopoeia on the hot spot. I hear the nations below are complaing about teh "yellow snow" from the nations above. :p
OOC: Ha! As it goes, 'Cloud-Water' is a Daoist concept: roughly translated, it means 'resistance to definition'. I never thought anyone would take it so literally...

Er... the UN has already addressed (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=150) that.
I realize that. This proposal, however, is a way for nations to circumvent Resolution 151. Not directly, of course, but it would definately be a way to kickstart a nuclear weapons program.

Had our delegacy made it to the vote earlier, this may have come at a time where it would have been more helpful, but in any event, this legislation is hardly a shocking new idea. The "fifty-three years" comment made earlier was a brief allusion to December 8, 1953, when, in the "real life" timeline, Dwight D. Eisenhower announced to his United Nations plans to institute a very similar plan, in which smaller, non-nuclear nations were invited to exchange civilian nuclear research and information with larger nuclear powers. Participating countries had access to fuel-quality uranium, research reactors, and power-generating reactors. Nuclear research equipment was exchanged and sold. Uranium mines were built. All of this, in the name of peaceful research, and under the insistence that the program would not contribute to nuclear weapons, proliferation.

And yet, at least two nations, that is, India and Pakistan, were able to successfully take advantage of this program of peace to start their own respective nuclear weapons programs. A third, Israel, was executing a number of plans to likewise abuse this program, and a fourth, Iran, may possibly have done likewise. And those are just the nations known to have been actively subverting the program.

That program, like this one, claimed to be a safe way for nations to trade peaceful nuclear knowledge without leading to proliferation. I would prefer to trust historical fact over the reassurances of diplomats.

Hey they managed to survice 2 whole seasons after the accident. But all kidding aside, nuclear waste doesn't explode. Contamination effects of nuclear waste are minor compared to general solar flare days. Tycho City, New Berlin, and the entire Lake Armstrong colony are built against stronger stuff than spent nuclear fuel and long lived isotopes.
True. The colonies are able to withstand nuclear fallout, but that wasn't my concern, I was worried about the idea of the proposal that it be conveniently placed such that the moon be laucnched off into space. We do have a couple asteroids that we've mined as much material as we can get from. Perhaps you would care to use these hollow rocks to store your materials. We would be more than happy to tow the asteroid away once it's loaded up. And since getting it away from the planet would be in the best interests of the entire planet we won't even charge you. (Although we would still recommend that you find a new power source that creates less harmful waste)

Perhaps the NSUN should consider passing a similar proposal for fusion power, or power from anti-matter reactions. These generate power on par or better than the nuclear fission of the day and have less harmful waste products (fusion-helium, anti-matter reactions-nothing)

We congratulate the distinguished representatives of The Beltway and Yelda on the passage of this fine resolution by an overwhelming margin.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

What Auss said. Very distinguished, very fine, very overwhelming.

Naturally I'm very disappointed. I hope that my muted congratulations are taken in good spirit by the authors.

On a purely selfish level, I'm thankful that this resolution will have no material effect on Ecopoeia, other than (probably) alter the UN's categorisation of the degree of economic freedom in the country.

Well, nearly no material effect. I've little doubt that the UN will reassess our economy as being significantly stronger come tomorrow's evaluations. What can this mean? Effectively, we've been provided with a large wad of cash, ostensibly for the purposes of complying with this resolution. Rest assured that this cash will not be invested in nuclear research; rather, it will fund the expansion of our national healthcare provision.

In short: thanks for the cash, my friends!

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

Um...not sure I'm seeing the source of this cashflow you're expecting...

Um...not sure I'm seeing the source of this cashflow you're expecting...
OOC: One of the effects of a strong free trade resolution is to boost the economy stat. Ecopoeia's economy is currently Good; I expect it to go up to Strong or even Very Strong. The boost has to come from somewhere; I'm just trying to put a novel spin on it.

And using too many semi-colons; as usual.

OOC: You could probably RP-abstract it as an effect of an increase in trade through related products: for example, maybe you make a certain sort of valve or pipe or flange!!! that's used in nuclear power plants, and might expect to see more in demand as a result of NERA.

Although some may not care, I have decided that even though I have been against this since the start, I have played back my personal recordings, and have decided that this may be a good idea.
Almost sincerely,
Ace Livantis

Although some may not care, I have decided that even though I have been against this since the start, I have played back my personal recordings, and have decided that this may be a good idea.
Almost sincerely,
The Loving Dictator of TRNOESO
Ace Livantis

OOC: You could probably RP-abstract it as an effect of an increase in trade through related products: for example, maybe you make a certain sort of valve or pipe or flange!!! that's used in nuclear power plants, and might expect to see more in demand as a result of NERA.
OOC: Heh, that's probably more realistic, though Eco doesn't really trade much outside of its region. Maybe the boost comes from UN corruption - someone's paying off the poor nations to keep 'em onside...

EDIT: 3,000 posts. Good Christ.

EDIT: 3,000 posts. Good Christ.

Maybe you'll catch up one of these days. ;)

Proliferation of Nuclear Energy/Weapons solves all war. If we allow this resolution to pass everyone essentially can have nuclear weapons while none will have the balls to use them due to the fact that they will be bombarded with a plethora of nuclear missiles themselves.

While very optimistic, unfortunately your view is a touch naive. For starters, this has nothing to do with weaponry. Further, there are those of us who would be willing to push the button anyways.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpghttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png

ooc: (i'm getting really tired of the nog, troll, snip crap. cut it the he!! out. just because my beliefs may not be popular, convince me otherwise, don't insult me dumb@$$...that's the only flaw in nationstates, the members are all @$$holes...)

Engage in debate, and a debate shall be had. Act like a troll...and
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/troll.jpg

Ye be.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpghttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png

Okay people, I voted against this thing.

Before it passed my nation was "Liberal Democratic Socialist". Now, because of the legislation my country had to pass in order to comply with this thing that I voted against, my nation is a "Corporate Bordello".

Ambassador from Karlingia.

That's ridiculous; your economic freedoms level can't have accelerated from authoritarian to libertarian in one fell swoop. Your daily issues must have had something to do with this aberration.

[EDIT: Scratch that. You're teeny-tiny. Maybe so. Just goes to show, you don't join the UN so early on if you don't want your stats to go all loopy; wait till you have a population of at least 200 mil.]

UNOG (http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png)! Thank you very much for this...

He had heard the horror stories. The Anti-Terrorism Act and the Repeal of the "Protection of Dolphins Act" had failed, despite being good proposals themselves. More recently, three proposals in a row had been defeated. But now, on the first resolution he had ever submitted, Bill Clinton had passed new law, and by a rather wide margin; 73% voted in favor.

Now, as he danced with his wife in the tiny office of The Beltway, as he listened to the music playing softly in the background, Clinton smiled. For the first time in years, he and his wife were close again, were husband and wife again. Tomorrow, of course, they'd merely be colleagues. Still, he decided that he might as well enjoy the moment, and kissed her.

EDIT: 3,000 posts. Good Christ.Spammer.

Spammer.
Says the person with 14,000+ posts.:p

OOC: Glory be! We're still a Civil Rights Lovefest. I guess all that recent gov't spending on, well, everything has borne fruit. Oh, and economy went from Good to Strong. Roll on, NHS!

[/spam]

Three proposals in a row had been defeated. But now, on the first resolution he had ever submitted, Bill Clinton had passed new law, and by a rather wide margin; 73% voted in favor.

Now, as he danced with his wife in the tiny office of The Beltway, as he listened to the music playing softly in the background, Clinton smiled. For the first time in years, he and his wife were close again, were husband and wife again. Tomorrow, of course, they'd merely be colleagues. Still, he decided that he might as well enjoy the moment, and kissed her.

Congrats. Bill Clinton can sure get a lot accomplished without a Republican-controlled Congress. ;)

Now that we know how to get free trade into the UN, how can I apply for the AFTA to receive "martyr" status? :p

*This has been a useless post by the Republic of Teruchev, all rights reserved*

--Poked for reference for NS Wiki article (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Nuclear_Energy_Research_Act)--
Speaking of said article, anyone want to help with it?

--Poked for reference for NS Wiki article (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Nuclear_Energy_Research_Act)--
Speaking of said article, anyone want to help with it?

OOC: I am unschooled in the ways of NSWiki but would love to learn.

If I give you a hand with some verbiage for the NERA would you be able to help me structure the AFTA article just to help me get rolling?

--Poked for reference for NS Wiki article (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Nuclear_Energy_Research_Act)--
Speaking of said article, anyone want to help with it?For the time being, how will this (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Nuclear_Energy_Research_Act) do?

For the time being, how will this (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Nuclear_Energy_Research_Act) do?

OOC: I should let the author comment instead, but I like it.

Now do mine! :p

OOC - Mikey likes it!

"What's this?" Hillary shouted angrily, pointing to the gold star with a picture on it that served to remind her of the mess that Bill had made of their marriage so long ago. "Someone's sick idea of a joke? Whoever this Jack Riley person is, he is not to do this again. And what is the CPESL, anyway?"

"Uh, nothing you need to know about..." Bill muttered. "Can I at least keep the kneepads?"

"Sure, whatever," Hillary replied, then took the gold star, slowly tore it to shreds, and carried those shreds into the bathroom, where she flushed them down the toilet...

For the time being, how will this (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Nuclear_Energy_Research_Act) do?

OOC: Magnificent! :D :p

The Federation of Vainne thinks that any research in Nuclear energy is just another excuse for countrie to develop a Nuclear (or something similar to that) Weapons program. World Peace is what the United Nations was founded upon, Let's take steps toward our initial Goal. As for fuel, Ethanol is the answer, Vainne runs entirely off of it and claimed Fuel Independency this year.


The office of Foreign Affairs

The Federation of Vainne

As for fuel, Ethanol is the answer, Vainne runs entirely off of it and claimed Fuel Independency this year.
I call tech-wank. How could you possibly have an entirely ethanol economy, without either operating at near-Stone Age level, or having [technobabble] advantages that most other nations where the rules of physics have some relevance won't?

what i meant was that our cars run off ethanol. We still have petroleum in our plastics etc. but we greatly reduced our dependency on Petroleum Hence me saying in my last post, "Fuel Independency" because that's just it, you need to read, i was talking about fuel. Not everything else in my economy.

The Office of Foreign Affairs

The Federation of Vainne

"Fuel" means anything that provides usable energy. If only your cars run off ethanol, then that's a drop in the ocean compared to your aircraft, your ships, and most of all your power stations - which is what this is about. You can't have nuclear cars.

There's no point in trying to reason with you. I said our fuel, that means...our fuel. And there are countries in the world that do run off of Ethanol. Do research. Does Brazil ring a bell. Im not continuing this anymore, you just want to argue. And if you knew anything about my country, we don't support Nuclear Researchor andything Nuclear. Plain and simple. And "technobabble"?? What are you talking about? If you start out on Ethanol, you stay on it. OUR FUEL IS ETHANOL. That means our ships, planes, w/e. there is no point to our conversation. Vainne runs off of Ethanol, its just true, you can't deny fact.

The Office of Foreign Affairs,

The Federation of Vainne