NationStates Jolt Archive

Safe Testing of Mass-Damage Weapons
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed By: 4stringopia

Description: RECOGNISING Individual Nations right to bear Nuclear arms in accordance to United Nations Resolution #109: Nuclear Armaments.

NOTING Each Nations right to feel secure outside of war and/or hostilities with other nations.

OBSERVING a current lack in legislation on safe weapon testing.

DEFINING Mass-Damage Weapons as any non-personal weapon/defence mechanism including military missiles and/or high-powered explosives.

DEFINING Testing of Mass-Damage Weapons as the detonation/launch of Mass-Damage Weapons in a non-hostile manor without intent on damaging enemy nations economic, military of sociologic powers.

The Safe Testing of Mass-Damage Weapons seeks to:

I. Recommend that Member States testing Mass-Damage Weapons within own geographical boarders do so away from civilian domiciles to minimise casualties.

II. Disallow testing of Mass-Damage weapons in area’s and or on targets that cause collateral damage directly or indirectly to other Member States. This can include but is not limited to direct fire and Nuclear fall-out/shrapnel.

III. Disallow the launch of Mass-Damage weapons through other member nations air space for testing purposes regardless of whether target is within said state or not as this can be perceived as a hostile action.

Approvals: -

Status: Not Submitted

Voting Ends: -

Character Count: 1,248

A draft for the safe testing of 'Mass-Damage Weapons', I'm unsure about how correct the catagory and strength are labeled as this if my first proposal, if I've made a mistake in that area (and more importantly there's something wrong with the proposal) I'd appreciate some feedback/suggestions for improvement.

Well, it ain't Political Stability, I can tell you that much for sure.

This is a good idea. Let's run with it.Category: Global Disarmament | International Security
Strength: MildThis could be either, depending on whether the text could be seen as encouraging or discouraging testing.

Next point: why just “mass-damage” weapons? The principles involved seem universal, so we should limit testing of all weapons. This will relieve you of the need for any definitions.Original: Recommend that Member States testing Mass-Damage Weapons within own geographical boarders do so away from civilian domiciles to minimise casualties.

Suggested: Recommend that Member States testing weapons within their own territory do so away from civilian population centres.Question: what about testing elsewhere? Do we want to permit this? With what limitations?Original: Disallow testing of Mass-Damage weapons in area’s and or on targets that cause collateral damage directly or indirectly to other Member States. This can include but is not limited to direct fire and Nuclear fall-out/shrapnel.

Suggested: Prohibit weapons testing in areas or on targets where such testing would result in direct or indirect collateral damage to other Member States; this includes but is not limited to nuclear, chemical, or biological contamination.Question: do we want to limit testing where there is just a probability of damage, or must there be a certainty?

Question: Why just limit damage to Member States?

Question: Rather than set a specific standard or damage, why not let damage claims be filed before a claims commission with the power to impose punitive damages as well as remunerative ones? That would tend to force nations to submit their testing to a cost-benefit analysis.Original: Disallow the launch of Mass-Damage weapons through other member nations air space for testing purposes regardless of whether target is within said state or not as this can be perceived as a hostile action.

Suggested: Prohibit the launch of weapons through other Member Nations' airspace for testing purposes regardless of the test's intended target.We don't need to say why we want to prohibit something; besides, it's pretty obvious.

Question: shouldn't we allow test shots over other peoples' territory with their permission?

Description: RECOGNISING Individual Nations right to bear Nuclear arms in accordance to United Nations Resolution #109: Nuclear Armaments.
Okay. Not really necessary, but not bad. Worth keeping if you have the space and perhaps have more to due with nuclear weapons in the proposal.

NOTING Each Nations right to feel secure outside of war and/or hostilities with other nations.

Yah, although I think nations ALWAYS have the right to feel secure, and war is (sometimes necessary, admittedly) a violation of the right. And I think perhaps it should be "The people of each and every nation" or somesuch.

OBSERVING a current lack in legislation on safe weapon testing.
Good.

DEFINING Mass-Damage Weapons as any non-personal weapon/defence mechanism including military missiles and/or high-powered explosives.

I think this definition needs to be tightened up a bit. I'm not sure how (I'll think of it later) but I'm certain this doesn't work. You don't define a personal weapon (or else, whats a non-personal weapon?), and military missles is a little vague too.

DEFINING Testing of Mass-Damage Weapons as the detonation/launch of Mass-Damage Weapons in a non-hostile manor without intent on damaging enemy nations economic, military of sociologic powers.

Okay, could use a bit of work. Add in the inclusion of any civilian structures, population centers, etc...so people don't go around bombing their own cities to quell riots or stop peacful protests etc...

The Safe Testing of Mass-Damage Weapons seeks to:

I. Recommend that Member States testing Mass-Damage Weapons within own geographical boarders do so away from civilian domiciles to minimise casualties.

Don't recommend, demand. And insist on a certain distance from civilian populations (like 40km minimum), depending on the type of weapon being tested.

II. Disallow testing of Mass-Damage weapons in area’s and or on targets that cause collateral damage directly or indirectly to other Member States. This can include but is not limited to direct fire and Nuclear fall-out/shrapnel.

Excellent, although perhaps enforce a minimum distance from national borders.

III. Disallow the launch of Mass-Damage weapons through other member nations air space for testing purposes regardless of whether target is within said state or not as this can be perceived as a hostile action.

Okay, although should probably be tightened a bit, just to insure there's no confusion with launching missles for hostile purposes. Also: This is NS, not all weapons are launched, for all we know some nations of subterranean burroughing torpedoes.


Although it needs some work, and could probably benefit from some extra conent (and more stuff to do with high danger weapons like Nukes or Chemical Weapons or landmines) I really like this proposal and the ideas behind it. 4stringtopia, would you like to join the UNDC? We could use more conributing members, and could help you draft this proposal.

Description: RECOGNISING Individual Nations right to bear Nuclear arms in accordance to United Nations Resolution #109: Nuclear Armaments.
Okay. Not really necessary, but not bad. Worth keeping if you have the space and perhaps have more to due with nuclear weapons in the proposal.

NOTING Each Nations right to feel secure outside of war and/or hostilities with other nations.

Yah, although I think nations ALWAYS have the right to feel secure, and war is (sometimes necessary, admittedly) a violation of the right. And I think perhaps it should be "The people of each and every nation" or somesuch.

OBSERVING a current lack in legislation on safe weapon testing.
Good.

DEFINING Mass-Damage Weapons as any non-personal weapon/defence mechanism including military missiles and/or high-powered explosives.

I think this definition needs to be tightened up a bit. I'm not sure how (I'll think of it later) but I'm certain this doesn't work. You don't define a personal weapon (or else, whats a non-personal weapon?), and military missles is a little vague too.

DEFINING Testing of Mass-Damage Weapons as the detonation/launch of Mass-Damage Weapons in a non-hostile manor without intent on damaging enemy nations economic, military of sociologic powers.

Okay, could use a bit of work. Add in the inclusion of any civilian structures, population centers, etc...so people don't go around bombing their own cities to quell riots or stop peacful protests etc...

The Safe Testing of Mass-Damage Weapons seeks to:

I. Recommend that Member States testing Mass-Damage Weapons within own geographical boarders do so away from civilian domiciles to minimise casualties.

Don't recommend, demand. And insist on a certain distance from civilian populations (like 40km minimum), depending on the type of weapon being tested.

II. Disallow testing of Mass-Damage weapons in area’s and or on targets that cause collateral damage directly or indirectly to other Member States. This can include but is not limited to direct fire and Nuclear fall-out/shrapnel.

Excellent, although perhaps enforce a minimum distance from national borders.

III. Disallow the launch of Mass-Damage weapons through other member nations air space for testing purposes regardless of whether target is within said state or not as this can be perceived as a hostile action.

Okay, although should probably be tightened a bit, just to insure there's no confusion with launching missles for hostile purposes. Also: This is NS, not all weapons are launched, for all we know some nations of subterranean burroughing torpedoes.


Although it needs some work, and could probably benefit from some extra conent (and more stuff to do with high danger weapons like Nukes or Chemical Weapons or landmines) I really like this proposal and the ideas behind it. 4stringtopia, would you like to join the UNDC (United Nations Disarmament Council)? We could use more conributing members, and could help you draft this proposal.

Heres the link, take a look: United Nations Disarmament Council (http://s10.invisionfree.com/undc)

What the hell are "sociologic powers"?

This would not be global disarmament because you are testing new arms as far as I can tell. It would probably be an issue of international security.

This is a good idea. Let's run with it.This could be either, depending on whether the text could be seen as encouraging or discouraging testing.

It neither encouraging nor discouraging, weapon testing is a natural part of developing since you want to be sure your countries defenses work, this merely acts as a safty precaution and attempt to stop member nations from intimidating other nations with shows of force, like for example detonating nuclear weapons close to nation boarders.

Next point: why just “mass-damage” weapons? The principles involved seem universal, so we should limit testing of all weapons. This will relieve you of the need for any definitions.

Well I suppose I wanted to eliminate personal arms i.e. hand guns and rifles, I lacked a general term to encompass 'everything else' so I tried to make up one, although applying it to all weapons makes sense.

Question: what about testing elsewhere? Do we want to permit this? With what limitations?Question: do we want to limit testing where there is just a probability of damage, or must there be a certainty?

The goal is to limit damage to other Nations, I tried not to regulate weapons testing inside individual member states as I feel they should know how to test their weapons without hurting themselves without regulations. And the proposal should cover 'probablity of damage' as well I'll be sure to include that in the rework

Question: Why just limit damage to Member States?

Call it being selective, it only applies to UN nations so I thought it should only protect UN nations.

Question: Rather than set a specific standard or damage, why not let damage claims be filed before a claims commission with the power to impose punitive damages as well as remunerative ones? That would tend to force nations to submit their testing to a cost-benefit analysis.We don't need to say why we want to prohibit something; besides, it's pretty obvious.

Goog point, I'll allow for that in the rework.

Question: shouldn't we allow test shots over other peoples' territory with their permission?

Well if both nations are aware of testing and have agreed then I don't see why not, I'll work it into the next draft.

Okay. Not really necessary, but not bad. Worth keeping if you have the space and perhaps have more to due with nuclear weapons in the proposal.

Well orginally the proposal only covered Nuclear weapons so it made sense to include this, I tried to include biological weapons and so forth so the original intention of this point got a bit lost, I might remove it in the next draft.

Yah, although I think nations ALWAYS have the right to feel secure, and war is (sometimes necessary, admittedly) a violation of the right. And I think perhaps it should be "The people of each and every nation" or somesuch.

Noted, although it refered more to nation leaders feeling safe from unsafe weapon testing the people should be included.

I think this definition needs to be tightened up a bit. I'm not sure how (I'll think of it later) but I'm certain this doesn't work. You don't define a personal weapon (or else, whats a non-personal weapon?), and military missles is a little vague too.

I ment non-personal weapons as things like hand guns and rifles that may be in possesion of individuals, but point taken.

Okay, could use a bit of work. Add in the inclusion of any civilian structures, population centers, etc...so people don't go around bombing their own cities to quell riots or stop peacful protests etc...

Well it's assumed killing and/or endagering civilian life would have an effect on economic and 'sociologic' powers. Also I leave it to the discression of individual Nations to use their weapons on their own states as they see fit, although I see little gain from bombing your own cities since the cost of coolatoral damage wouldn't be too cost effective.

Don't recommend, demand. And insist on a certain distance from civilian populations (like 40km minimum), depending on the type of weapon being tested.

While I don't believe in the genocide of a countries own people for weapon testing perposes the goal of this draft isn't to limit states testing of their own weapons but to protect other states from reckless tests.

Excellent, although perhaps enforce a minimum distance from national borders.

Well this could get tricky if a state is particualerly small or overly thin, enforcing say a 40 kilometre 'safe distance' on a state 70 kilometres wide would abolish their ability to test their weapons, while unlikely it's a case I wish to avoid.

Okay, although should probably be tightened a bit, just to insure there's no confusion with launching missles for hostile purposes. Also: This is NS, not all weapons are launched, for all we know some nations of subterranean burroughing torpedoes.

Noted.

Although it needs some work, and could probably benefit from some extra conent (and more stuff to do with high danger weapons like Nukes or Chemical Weapons or landmines) I really like this proposal and the ideas behind it. 4stringtopia, would you like to join the UNDC? We could use more conributing members, and could help you draft this proposal.

I'm unfamiliar with the UNDC, I'd welcome help so long as the orginal intentions of the proposal remained intact.

What the hell are "sociologic powers"?

It's most probably something I made up, it's supposed to include the death/harm of civilian and non-civilians. This part will most likely be reworded/completely stricken.

Thank you to Dancing Bananaland and Community Property for the feedback I'll work on a new draft and hopefully have it up soon.

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

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed By: 4stringopia

Description: NOTING the people of each and every nation’s right to feel secure outside of war and/or hostilities with other nations.

OBSERVING a current lack in legislation on safe weapon testing.

DEFINING Testing of Weapons as the implementation of defensive/offensive Weapons in a non-hostile manor without intent on damaging enemy nations.

The Safe Testing of Mass-Damage Weapons seeks to:

I. Recommend that Member States testing weapons within their own territory do so away from civilian population centres.

II. Prohibit weapons testing in areas or on targets where such testing could result in direct or indirect collateral damage to other Member States; this includes but is not limited to nuclear, chemical, or biological contamination.

III. Form a claim committee that Member Nations may submit claims against other Member Nations that they believe to be in violation of article II, said claim committee would have the power to impose disciplinary actions against Member States depending on the validity of said claim.

IV. Prohibit the launch of weapons through other Member Nations' airspace for testing purposes regardless of the test's intended target unless prior agreements can be made beforehand.

Approvals: -

Status: Not Submitted

Voting Ends: -

Character Count: 1,193

Here's the updates version, I tried to include all the amendments that were suggested by both Dancing Bananaland and Comunity Property, also thank you to Commonalitarianism for the catagory recomendation.

Would Section II cover islands in international waters or international waters because of the spread of contamination into multiple territories. If so, I would support this legislation.

Would Section II cover islands in international waters or international waters because of the spread of contamination into multiple territories. If so, I would support this legislation.

I think section II should be better defined so that it isn't a vague issue as to it's intention and effect.

I think this is a great idea for legislation. However, I see a problem with it: everything is stuff nations will already be doing anyway or wouldn't need to do if this passed.

If they are testing it in their own borders, of course they're not going to let it hit anything, it would be in their own disadvantage.

If they're testing it elsewhere, the resolution doesn't really have any teeth. If nations want to test in a way that hurts other nations, they can just say they were trying to hurt the other nations. The other nation will consider it an act of war, but they'd do that anyway.

Art Webster
Ambassador to the United Nations

It neither encouraging nor discouraging, weapon testing is a natural part of developing since you want to be sure your countries defenses work, this merely acts as a safty precaution and attempt to stop member nations from intimidating other nations with shows of force, like for example detonating nuclear weapons close to nation boarders.This is where you need to stop.

Stop and look at the categories for the UN. Stop and figure out what category you want. Then, you need to make the Proposal fit the category, not the other way around. The most brilliantly written Proposal in the history of mankind will still be deleted if it doesn't fit a category.

It sounds like you still don't know what category you want to use and are going to try and finish your Proposal before attempting to shoe-horn it into something that sounds kinda close. That's not going to work and is a waste of everyone's time. So stop, and decide what category you want before you go any further.

Stop and look at the categories for the UN. Stop and figure out what category you want. Then, you need to make the Proposal fit the category, not the other way around. The most brilliantly written Proposal in the history of mankind will still be deleted if it doesn't fit a category.Yeah, my bad. I should have made it clearer to 4stringopia that this was in fact required. What I meant to say when I said...This could be either, depending on whether the text could be seen as encouraging or discouraging testing....was that you need to decide if the purpose of your resolution is to reduce tension, (perhaps) limit testing, and thus (more or less explicitly, but a really suggestive implication will do) reduce arms spending, or if its purpose is to increase security by allowing more testing to occur by making testing safer (less risk of accidental war means more testing and spending), again with the implication that this will increase spending/security.

Here are a couple of suggestions about that:International Security

<#> REQUIRES Members to establish military liaisons with neighboring nations as a prerequisite for testing, for the purpose of reducing the risk of accidental war and thereby making testing safer.

<#> RECOMMENDS that Members invite foreign observers to tests whenever security concerns permit, in order to establish peaceful intent in their conduct.The idea (and I don't claim to have gotten this right) is to imply or even state outright that people are going to be spending more money on the military (liaisons cost money, as do inspections).Global Disarmament

<#> REQUIRES Members to warn neighbors well in advance of all tests and defer all testing until these requirements are met.

<#> REQUIRES Members to consider all possible harmful effects of testing prior to their initiation.

<#> RECOMMENDS that Members only conduct tests that pose no risk to innocent persons.Again, however imperfectly, we're implying that nations are going to test less, and therefore deploy fewer new weapons systems (and spend less money).

Do you get the idea now?

You know, every time I look at this thread title I see: "DRAFT: Safe Testing of Mass-Pwnage Weapons"

Rotflmao!!!

Originally posted by Community Property
Rotflmao!!!


Perhaps, by the above referenced quote, some of my concerned colleagues will now understand my dilemma in knowing how to address the esteemed representative from Community Property. It is quite difficult to ascertain when he is speaking IC or OOC...

Perhaps, by the above referenced quote, some of my concerned colleagues will now understand my dilemma in knowing how to address the esteemed representative from Community Property. It is quite difficult to ascertain when he is speaking IC or OOC...
Um, he was laughing at what I (or rather, Yelda..oh you know what I mean) said here:
You know, every time I look at this thread title I see: "DRAFT: Safe Testing of Mass-Pwnage Weapons"
He was responding to an OOC post and he was obviously also OOC. Rotflmao isn't even a word. Why would he have one of his characters say that?

Iron Felix, some of us were chastised this evening in the Stranger's Bar for failing to address our esteemed colleague from Community Property properly here on the GA floor.

I made the point that it is very often difficult to know when our esteemed colleague is IC or OOC. Your own post made it very clear that you were speaking OOC.

Please note the absence of OOC indications in our esteemed colleagues statement.

OOC: Not trying to be a bitch here, but if people want to call some of us out for failing to address our colleague properly, perhaps our colleague should follow board conventions when speaking IC, and also when OOC.

"If I recall, I was the once chastised for my grievious error of addressing the esteemed representitive of Community Property by such... such is the act of a "polite neophyte... for which I humbly apologize on behalf of my Goverment.. my dog, and the Platypus that represents my Nation...

You may proceed with the flogging..."

Stew drops his dark green robes, and kneels, head bent in contriteness and penance...

"But please, try not to ruin this suit too much... it's pure silk..."

--snip--

Do you get the idea now?

Yes thank you, and thanks to the Glorious Hack, I'll be sure to edit the proposal to make sure it fits into a catagory.

This is a good idea, that needs a little tightening. Especially as to the definition of a "Mass Damage Weapon"; at the moment, this includes battleships, which are rather hard to test within the geographical borders of a nation...

Recommend that Member States testing Mass-Damage Weapons within own geographical boarders do so away from civilian domiciles to minimise casualties.

Awwwwwwwww, but that's where I get best demonstration of how effective the weapons really are ;)