NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is a new draft of a resolution that previously failed to reach quorum. We welcome any constructive criticism and hope that together we can rid the (NS) world of these dangerous yet pointless weapons.
The draft reads as follows:

UN Radiological Weapons Ban
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong

Description: THE UNITED NATIONS,

NOTING that radiological weapons (commonly referred to as dirty bombs) differ greatly in effect from nuclear weapons, but pose equal or even greater long term threats;

APPALLED at the economic, environmental, and public health risks posed by the use of radiological weapons, given that such weapons are indiscriminate and of little or no use for targeting military activities, yet are capable of causing severe damage to both persons and property, and generating extreme fear;

DEEPLY CONCERNED by the availability of radiological material from which a radiological weapon could be constructed, particularly material that is discarded along with other waste, as such material could be obtained and put to use with relative ease by terrorist groups, and

CONVINCED that radiological weapons are both unnecessary for national defence and an unacceptable risk to the safety of citizens of UN member nations and the environments in which they live;

1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, a radiological weapon as any weapon that relies largely or solely on the dispersion of radioactive material as a means of attack, and does not achieve critical mass during the course of its use.

2. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, radiological material as radioactive material which might reasonably have application in construction of a radiological weapon.

3. PROHIBITS the possession, production, trafficking or use (either directly or through proxy) of radiological weapons as defined by this resolution.

4. MANDATES that all radiological weapons in the possession of member nations or known to be in the possession of their citizens must be immediately and completely destroyed through a method which incorporates all practical safeguards against detonation of the weapon and dispersal of the radioactive material.

5. REQUIRES all member nations to take every reasonable precaution to prevent the use of or access to radiological material by unauthorised individuals, especially in areas such as hospitals, to which the public have access on a regular basis.

6. REQUIRES all member nations to ensure that all those who maintain or make use of radiological material:

a. Take all practicable steps to secure radiological material against loss or theft,

b. Promptly report loss or theft of such material to appropriate authorities, and

c. Dispose of such material safely or deliver it to the appropriate government authorities for proper destruction.

Whilst Gruenberg has come to in general oppose attempts at UN disarmament, we accept the limited value vs. great danger of radiological weaponry.

One point would be that clause 5 refers to "unauthorised individuals", and by implication clause 6 is dealing with these individuals too. Might it be an idea to - not specify, but certainly suggest - what sort of individuals should be authorised to possess or use radiological material?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Security Advisor

OOC: On the category, I'd suggest "Significant" rather than "Strong". For one, it'll be less off-putting to players who take more account of stats - look at what a tizzy there was after the last Social Justice, Strong resolution passed - and for two, it's a more accurate reflection of the force of this proposal (given I can't believe radiological weaponry is a significant component of the armouries of a great many UN nations).

I have a minor point about clause 6, which, if I've read it correctly, also includes civilians. I'm not convinced, however, that they are capable of carrying out point a, at least not to an acceptable standard, and neither of point c (the 'Dispose of such material safely' part).

Overall, the draft looks very good.

what sort of individuals should be authorised to possess or use radiological material?
This came up during drafting, and I decided that it would probably be best if left to a future resolution; a resolution concering the proper handling of radioactive material, covering issues such as licensing, not selling to terrorists and proper disposal.

I'd suggest "Significant" rather than "Strong"
You make a good point. I had based this on previous resolutions that imposed weapons bans but, now you mention it, "Significant" does seem more appropriate than "Strong" for this one.

I have a minor point about clause 6, which, if I've read it correctly, also includes civilians.
What use would a civilian have for highly radioactive material (beyond research purposes, healthcare or industry for which I see no reason why they would not be able to fulfil the requirements)?

I have a minor point about clause 6, which, if I've read it correctly, also includes civilians. I'm not convinced, however, that they are capable of carrying out point a, at least not to an acceptable standard, and neither of point c (the 'Dispose of such material safely' part).

Overall, the draft looks very good.

We're not sure we understand the concern. Is the honorable representative from Party Mode suggesting that private firms and institutions are less capable of securing the material than the government? If so, we would disagree. Our defense industries are responsible for providing protection for large amounts of classified information, sensitive technologies, and materials of war. They are quite capable of doing so. Our hospitals provide tight security on abusable drugs and high-dollar-value equipment. We believe companies which would use or maintain the material could very reasonably be expected to secure it adequately.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Have I misread something, or does this proposal mention that radiological materials are used 'in areas such as hospitals', only to mandate that people who have/maintain them 'Dispose of such material safely or deliver it to the appropriate government authorities for proper destruction'? Yes, I know that it means something like 'you can use them, but if you're going to dispose of them, do so safely, etc, etc', but the wording isn't clear at all.

We're not sure we understand the concern. Is the honorable representative from Party Mode suggesting that private firms and institutions are less capable of securing the material than the government?
Yes, is the answer. Well, was.

Originally Posted by Party Mode
Have I misread something, or does this proposal mention that radiological materials are used 'in areas such as hospitals', only to mandate that people who have/maintain them 'Dispose of such material safely or deliver it to the appropriate government authorities for proper destruction'? Yes, I know that it means something like 'you can use them, but if you're going to dispose of them, do so safely, etc, etc', but the wording isn't clear at all.
A good point. This isn't at all clear. I have amended it to the following:

c. Dispose of such material safely or deliver it to the appropriate government authorities for proper destruction, following the completion of its use.

Originally Posted by Party Mode

Originally Posted by Ausserland
We're not sure we understand the concern. Is the honorable representative from Party Mode suggesting that private firms and institutions are less capable of securing the material than the government?Yes, is the answer. Well, was.
Why would they not be able to? The way I see it, if an organisation wishes to have the privilege of using radioactive material, then they must accept the responsibility of securing it and ensuring that it is disposed of safely.