U.N. Proposal: UN Radiogical Weapons Ban
[NS]New Ixion
11-08-2006, 17:35
The proposal "UN Radiological Weapons Ban" has been submitted for your scrutiny. Essentially, I submitted this because of all the WMDs these have so far gone unmentioned, and given their potential, something needed to be done.
"Radiological Weapons" essentially means dirty bombs, which usually consist of radioactive material attached to conventional explosives which when detonated results in the dispersion of the radioactive material.
As mentioned, these are unnecessary, indiscriminate weapons of virtually no use for attacking military installations. It is also unacceptable that such weapons could be so easily manufactured by terrorists.
For real world info see here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/dirtybomb.shtml).
I am welcome to constructive criticism either here or by telegram, and I urge all UN delegates to approve this proposal.
Thank you very much.
UN Radiogical Weapons Ban
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
Description: NOTING that radiological weapons pose many of the same threats as Nuclear weapons, but are not prohibited or otherwise controlled by past resolutions;
NOTING ALSO that such weapons are indiscriminate, and of little or no use for targeting military institutions, yet are capable of causing severe economic damage and generating considerable fear;
APPALLED at the economic, environmental and public health risks posed by the use of such a weapon in an urban area, or area of special scientific interest;
CONCERNED by the availability of radiological material from which a radiological weapon could be constructed, particularly material such as is discarded along with other waste by heavy industry and the healthcare industry in particular;
DECLARING a radiological weapon to be any weapon that relies largely, or solely on the dispersion of radioactive material as its means of attack;
CONVINCED that radiological weapons are both unnecessary for national defence and an unacceptable risk to the safety of citizens of UN members, and the environment in which they live;
HEREBY RESOLVES:
1.The possession, production, trafficking or use (either directly or through proxy) of radiological weapons as defined by this resolution is forbidden to all UN member nations.
2.Any radiological weapon proscribed as described in this resolution which at any time is in the possession of a member nation or known to be in the possession of its citizenry must be immediately and completely destroyed through a method which incorporates all possible safeguards against any detonation of the weapon and/or dispersal of the radioactive material.
STRONGLY URGES
3.United Nations member states to take every possible precaution to prevent use of or access to radiological material by unauthorised individuals, especially in areas such as hospitals, which the public have access to on a regular basis.
4.United Nations member states to require its industries and healthcare industries to dispose of radiological material safely and/or to deliver it to the government for supervision, to avoid firstly, deliberate and malevolent use of the material and secondly, accidental access that could result in injury.
St Edmundan Antarctic
11-08-2006, 17:46
I think that clause #3 would be better if it required "every practical precaution" rather than "every possible precaution", but the general idea has some merit.
Ausserland
11-08-2006, 20:51
We intend to give careful thought to whether or not we will support this proposal if redrafted. As it stands, we could not. We concur with the comment of the honorable representative of St Edmundan Antarctic. The requirement as it stand is unreasonable. "Practicable" or "practical" should be substituted.
Also, we would strongly recommend moving the definition of "radiological weapon" right up to the top of the clauses. The term is too easily misunderstood to be synonymous with "nuclear weapon".
Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
Flibbleites
11-08-2006, 21:38
Also, we would strongly recommend moving the definition of "radiological weapon" right up to the top of the clauses. The term is too easily misunderstood to be synonymous with "nuclear weapon".
It also might not hurt to add in that they're commonly known as dirty bombs, it'll make it easier for people to know what you're talking about.
Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Community Property
12-08-2006, 00:25
Regretably, as written, this resolution is illegal. It violates Reolution #109 (Nuclear Weapons) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110) thanks to this clause:DECLARING a radiological weapon to be any weapon that relies largely, or solely on the dispersion of radioactive material as its means of attack;...It could be argued that most, if not all, nuclear weapons do this.
Perhaps this would work better:DECLARING a radiological weapon to be any weapon that relies largely, or solely on the dispersion of radioactive material as its means of attack, and does not achieve critical mass in the course of its use;
Dancing Bananland
12-08-2006, 04:44
STRONGLY URGES
3.United Nations member states to take every possible precaution to prevent use of or access to radiological material by unauthorised individuals, especially in areas such as hospitals, which the public have access to on a regular basis.
4.United Nations member states to require its industries and healthcare industries to dispose of radiological material safely and/or to deliver it to the government for supervision, to avoid firstly, deliberate and malevolent use of the material and secondly, accidental access that could result in injury.
This stuff seems pretty common sense, and in my opinion should be mandated. As well, legislation regarding what defines safe disposal and transfer should be dealt with in it's own clause. With that and some phrasing correction I would likely vote for this proposal.
That reminds me, I have to build and use all the idrty bombs I can before this goes through.
Flibbleites
12-08-2006, 05:00
Regretably, as written, this resolution is illegal. It violates Reolution #109 (Nuclear Weapons) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110) thanks to this clause:It could be argued that most, if not all, nuclear weapons do this.
Actually the title of resolution #109 is "Nuclear Armaments not nuclear weapons."
Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Cluichstan
12-08-2006, 16:08
We intend to give careful thought to whether or not we will support this proposal if redrafted. As it stands, we could not. We concur with the comment of the honorable representative of St Edmundan Antarctic. The requirement as it stand is unreasonable. "Practicable" or "practical" should be substituted.
Also, we would strongly recommend moving the definition of "radiological weapon" right up to the top of the clauses. The term is too easily misunderstood to be synonymous with "nuclear weapon".
Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
Indeed, and that would make it illegal (OOC: IMHO). Keep your hands out of our nuclear arsenal.
Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
[NS]New Ixion
13-08-2006, 12:06
Although I disagree that nuclear weapons (that is to say, those weapons that achieve critical mass in the course of their use) rely largely or solely on the dispersion of radioactive material as their means of attack, I accept that the issue could use clarification.
Since the proposal is looking as if it will fail to amass the required support to reach the vote, I submit a revised draft that I hope will do better.
I am still unsure about Dancing Bananland’s recommendation for “legislation regarding what defines safe disposal and transfer” as this would either be regrettably brief or so long that it would really require a resolution of its own. I am welcome to suggestions and/or drafts for the clause(s) required for this.
Also, given that I have received so much good support on this, much of which was not my idea, and some pretty much just copied from your posts, I wish to credit members at the end of the resolution, but I am unsure of how to do this without resorting to a long list at the end, which I believe is frowned upon. Suggestions welcome.
The revised draft reads as follows, with changes in red and credit in blue:
UN Radiological Weapons Ban
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
Description: DECLARING a radiological weapon to be any weapon that relies largely, or solely on the dispersion of radioactive material as its means of attack, and does not achieve critical mass in the course of its use;{Moved – Ausserland, addition – Community Property}
DECLARING ALSO for clarification that these weapons are most commonly referred to as dirty bombs;{Flibbleites}
NOTING that radiological weapons pose many of the same threats as Nuclear weapons, but are not prohibited or otherwise controlled by past resolutions;
NOTING ALSO that such weapons are indiscriminate, and of little or no use for targeting military institutions, yet are capable of causing severe economic damage and generating considerable fear;
APPALLED at the economic, environmental and public health risks posed by the use of such a weapon in an urban area, or area of special scientific interest;
CONCERNED by the availability of radiological material from which a radiological weapon could be constructed, particularly material such as is discarded along with other waste by heavy industry and the healthcare industry in particular;
CONVINCED that radiological weapons are both unnecessary for national defence and an unacceptable risk to the safety of citizens of UN members, and the environment in which they live;
HEREBY RESOLVES:
1.The possession, production, trafficking or use (either directly or through proxy) of radiological weapons as defined by this resolution is forbidden to all UN member nations.
2.Any radiological weapon proscribed as described in this resolution which at any time is in the possession of a member nation or known to be in the possession of its citizenry must be immediately and completely destroyed through a method which incorporates all possible safeguards against any detonation of the weapon and/or dispersal of the radioactive material.
3.United Nations member states to take every practical{St Edmundan Antarctic, Ausserland} precaution to prevent use of or access to radiological material by unauthorised individuals, especially in areas such as hospitals, which the public have access to on a regular basis.
4.United Nations member states to require its industries and healthcare industries to dispose of radiological material safely and/or to deliver it to the government for supervision, to avoid firstly, deliberate and malevolent use of the material and secondly, accidental access that could result in injury.
{3. & 4. now mandated – Dancing Bananland}
Ausserland
13-08-2006, 16:03
Having now had a chance to receive the advice of our Ministry for Defense, we can state that our nation will support this proposal. Some comments....
Radiological weapons are not nuclear weapons within the accepted meanings of those terms. We'd suggest some additional work on the definition section to make that abundantly clear to those who don't know the difference. Otherwise, discussion (and perhaps voting) will be skewed by their misunderstanding.
The first NOTING clause doesn't seem necessary and might just add to the confusion. Perhaps simply deleting the part about "many of the same threats" would suffice.
In the CONCERNED clause, it might be good to mention that the relative availability of material and cheapness of construction make radiological weapons an attractive option for terrorists.
Meaning no disrespect, but the operative clauses need considerable work on wording. They need to be brought into parallel and grammatically connected to the opening of the section. We'd be glad to provide help with this, here or in an off-site forum (which would likely be more efficient).
As for credits, the rules state that you may mention only one nation as co-author or contributor to the proposal. Most people who contribute ideas and help are quite satisfied with a simple "thank you" posted here when the "SUBMITTED" thread is opened. In other words, don't worry about it.
Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
Gruenberg
13-08-2006, 16:06
We will withhold judgment on this proposal for now, but we would like to see more emphasis placed on preparing for and combating the effects of radiological weaponry. Simply passing laws is insufficient to deal with the (literal) fallout from the violation of such laws.
In other words, something on the necessity of educating the civilian populace, being able to instate disaster recovery measures, continuity of government, and so on.
~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Security Advisor
Ausserland
13-08-2006, 16:21
We will withhold judgment on this proposal for now, but we would like to see more emphasis placed on preparing for and combating the effects of radiological weaponry. Simply passing laws is insufficient to deal with the (literal) fallout from the violation of such laws.
In other words, something on the necessity of educating the civilian populace, being able to instate disaster recovery measures, continuity of government, and so on.
~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Security Advisor
We'll support the proposal with or without the additions suggested by our distinguished colleague and friend from Gruenberg, but we believe his suggestions deserve careful consideration. We have some hesitation on stating complete agreement, though, as we're not certain how such provisions could be included while avoiding the "one-size-fits-all" problem we so often see in NSUN proposals. Perhaps a very general "URGES" clause would do it.
Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Gruenberg
13-08-2006, 16:27
We'll support the proposal with or without the additions suggested by our distinguished colleague and friend from Gruenberg, but we believe his suggestions deserve careful consideration. We have some hesitation on stating complete agreement, though, as we're not certain how such provisions could be included while avoiding the "one-size-fits-all" problem we so often see in NSUN proposals. Perhaps a very general "URGES" clause would do it.
Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Absolutely. Certainly, something requiring certain measures (e.g. mandating bunkers or air filters for buildings, or weekly drills in public schools) would be much too unrealistic and unreasonable. We were thinking of something more general, although we'd probably support a requirement that states engage in some form of preparation in case of RDD attack.
~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Security Advisor
Community Property
14-08-2006, 03:29
Radiological weapons are not nuclear weapons within the accepted meanings of those terms. We'd suggest some additional work on the definition section to make that abundantly clear to those who don't know the difference. Otherwise, discussion (and perhaps voting) will be skewed by their misunderstanding.We agree absolutely; that's why we want a clear delineation. You see, we will vote for this when it hits the floor, so we want to make sure that it's not declared illegal.
Criticaliity is, we feel a good test; of course, there may be a better one. We just don't want someone saying, "Well, neutron bombs are radiological weapons, and yet under #109..."Actually the title of resolution #109 is "Nuclear Armaments not nuclear weapons."
Bob Flibble
UN RepresentativeWe stand corrected.
Ausserland
14-08-2006, 03:59
We agree absolutely; that's why we want a clear delineation. You see, we will vote for this when it hits the floor, so we want to make sure that it's not declared illegal.
Criticaliity is, we feel a good test; of course, there may be a better one. We just don't want someone saying, "Well, neutron bombs are radiological weapons, and yet under #109..."We stand corrected.
The definition as it stands clearly excludes nuclear weapons, which rely primarily on heat and shock to cause their damage. It also excludes neutron bombs, which maximize emission of radiation to target personnel and electronic systems, not dispersal of radioactive material. The proposal does not violate the duplication or contradiction rules. It would probably be good, though, to make the differences clearer in the definition for the benefit of the voters. The author, we're sure, will be working on that.
Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
The Most Glorious Hack
14-08-2006, 06:38
Hmm. What about so-called "cobalt-salted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salted_bomb)" weapons? Essentially, thermonuclear devices (protected by 109) that are also designed to spread as much radiological contamination as possible. Doomsday devices, if you will. I happen to know of at least one nation (ahem) that has some exceptionally large versions of these weapons (no, not the Hack).
At any rate, I think such devices will make a definition difficult, unless it specifically excludes any device that actually obtains fusion or fission; lest it run afoul of the standing Resolution.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack