NationStates Jolt Archive

Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero would like to introduce a new draft proposal:
"Nuclear Responsibility"
and to thanks all the nation who helped in the drafting process so far, privately or on the Reclamation forum: http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation.
We wil be grateful for every comments, suggestions and critics, thanks.

NB: The clause -6- of this proposal is based on the idea of a previous proposal submited last year by ""The RunnyNose Tribe" and co-authored by "_Myopia_".

Here is the current draft:

“Nuclear Responsibility”

Environmental – All Business

-A- FULLY AWARE of potential nuclear risks to populations and our environment, on both national and international levels, such as radiation exposure and radioactive contamination,

-B- DESIRING to reduce the risks related to nuclear threats and accidents,

-C- RESPECTING the choice of members to possess a nuclear deterrent arsenal,

-D- ALARMED by the amount of nuclear armaments of some nations exceeding their deterrent need,

-E- CONVINCED that in order to reduce these risks related to nuclear energy and weaponry, best practices and safety and security measures must be implemented and populations must be kept well informed:


-1- STRONGLY URGES all members to limit or reduce their nuclear arsenal in order to not exceed a reasonable deterrent force;

-2- CHARGES the Nuclear Energy Research Commission (NERC) created by UN resolution #154 to ESTABLISH the “UN Nuclear Accidents and Incidents Scale” (UNNAIS) which defines a 10 level gradation of nuclear incidents and accidents and their related measurement procedures and their adequate needed responses (where 1 indicates an on-site anomaly without any contamination, and 10 indicates a breakdown of a reactor along with widespread contamination);

-3- REQUIRES that, for each area or activity maintaining or using nuclear material which might pose a risk of a UNNAIS accident at level 6 or above, an accident control plan shall be developed, maintained and tested by national and local administrations, in coordination with neighbour nations. At a minimum, this plan shall address, wherever as appropriate, with an emergency and/or long term approach: containment, evacuation, medical response, site security and environmental response.

-4- MANDATES that, for any accident at UNNAIS level 6 or above, the public in the potentially affected area shall immediately be informed of (i) the occurrence of the incident, (ii) the amount and nature of the health risk posed, and (iii) appropriate protective measures to be taken while avoiding potential panic situations and false alarms;

-5- MANDATES that records shall be maintained of all UNNAIS incident at level 1 or above, and shall be made available for examination by the public unless required to be classified in the interest of national security;

-6- CHARGES the NERC with the following:

-6.1- to make further strong surety recommendations for civil and military nuclear reactors, their facilities and the disposal and transportation of their related waste, including but not limited to:
-maximum years of operational life Management for critical systems and components,
-operation and control good practices and procedures,
-accident behaviour containment,
-redundancy of critical systems,
-confinement of reactors,
-structure reliability in relation to, for example, fire, natural disasters and external attacks,
-delivery of appropriate safety and decontamination equipment and medicines, along with related instruction, such as iodine pills in order to protect population from thyroid cancers caused by radioactivity,

-6.2- to offer help to members in order to comply with this document along with desiring non-members and to offer training to their nuclear facilities personal, including training on simulation control room,

-6.3- to perform scheduled and mandatory inspections of all civil nuclear reactors, their facilities and the disposal and transportation of their related waste, to release public report and to make related surety requirements, related to each inspection, in accordance with this document.

My government does not necessarily agree with the idea of restricting nuclear weapons, given that in the past we have argued in this body in support of wepaons rights, but I'll very much like where this has headed.

The Empire is staunchly pro-business and pro-free marketism, but that doesn't mean that we don't believe in safety. I definitely like how Clauses 2-5 give the NERC some specific and important powers. What I'm not comfortable with is the added bureacracy.

I don't really see anything substantially wrong with it, but I could be wrong. I'll pass it off to my advisors to pick over. Good work so far!

Most courteously,

Full support for this, although I would still advise you to drop -1- and probably -D- as this resolution seems to be concerned more with safety in power plants and production facilities than with weapons. It's not enough of a disagreement for us to withhold support, I just feel that they don't add much to the text and removing them might increase the chances of passing.

On this:
-operation and control good practices and procedures,
Did you mean "good operation and control practices and procedures"?

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Make sure this only applies to civilian (i.e., non-military) use of nuclear power. And please drop the bit about inspections. That'd be a deal-breaker for us.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We agree with Yelda that dropping sections -1- and -D- would greatly improve the proposal and improve its chances at passing. We feel including these provisions will be setting the proposal up for a battle it cannot win, considering the NSUN's unfortunate tendency to support nuclear weaponry.

We also must respectfully disagree with the Cluichstani delegation on dropping the provisions concerning inspection and exempting the military from the proposal. We feel the danger posed by nuclear accidents is present no matter who possesses the nuclear equipment or weaponry (civilian or military). We also feel inspections are the best way to ensure compliance and protection from nuclear accidents. Perhaps a change could be made to the proposal mandating that any information gathered as a result of these inspections would only be used by NERC for the purposes outlined in the proposal, barring NERC from releasing the information for any other purpose or to any other party. That way, the rights of nations to keep their nuclear deterrent secret and the worthy goals outlined in the proposal could be balanced.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Make sure this only applies to civilian (i.e., non-military) use of nuclear power. And please drop the bit about inspections. That'd be a deal-breaker for us.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
-2- through -5- cover incidents and accidents, control plans, records keeping and the public's right to be informred of, and protected against, such incidents and accidents. Common sense would dictate that those provisions would apply regardless of whether the accident occurred at a civilian or military facility.

-6-, -6.1- and -6.2- concern recommendations and offering help, so the NERC isn't going to burst, unannounced, into the reactor space of one of your nuclear subs.

The inspections in -6.3- apply only to civilian facilities and I would strongly advise the LAE delegation Not to drop them.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

We have no problem with limiting nuclear forces. We have replaced much of our nuclear weapons program with orbital ortillery, multi-burst high energy plasma warheads, solar beam powered platforms, and similar materials.

On this:

Did you mean "good operation and control practices and procedures"?

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Thanks, maybe:

"-control procedures and good practices for operations"

Perhaps a change could be made to the proposal mandating that any information gathered as a result of these inspections would only be used by NERC for the purposes outlined in the proposal, barring NERC from releasing the information for any other purpose or to any other party. That way, the rights of nations to keep their nuclear deterrent secret and the worthy goals outlined in the proposal could be balanced.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Good idea, thanks:

"-7- MANDATES that any information gathered as a result of these inspections would only be used by NERC for the purposes outlined in the proposal"

Full support for this, although I would still advise you to drop -1- and probably -D- as this resolution seems to be concerned more with safety in power plants and production facilities than with weapons. It's not enough of a disagreement for us to withhold support, I just feel that they don't add much to the text and removing them might increase the chances of passing.
We agree with Yelda that dropping sections -1- and -D- would greatly improve the proposal and improve its chances at passing. We feel including these provisions will be setting the proposal up for a battle it cannot win, considering the NSUN's unfortunate tendency to support nuclear weaponry.

Thanks for your "strategy" advice but for me it's worth the try and if it fails I’m pretty sure a nation will submit a new proposal about surety in the following year. But as I have no read yet any remark against the content of -1-, I personnaly don't think it can damage the odds of this proposal to pass; this is just my impression.

OOC: 'Environmental -All' again?!? Do you realise what this would do to our nations' economies? Maybe, given the subject, it could legitimately be defined as just 'Environmental - Uranium Mining' instead?

OOC: 'Environmental -All' again?!? Do you realise what this would do to our nations' economies? Maybe, given the subject, it could legitimately be defined as just 'Environmental - Uranium Mining' instead?

Thanks, I have no problem with "Uranium Mining", maybe better indeed.

Thanks for the comments.

Here is the new draft, we will submit it for a no-campaign test submition today.

“Nuclear Responsibility”

Environmental – Uranium Mining

-A- FULLY AWARE of potential nuclear risks to populations and our environment, on both national and international levels, such as radiation and radioactivity,

-B- DESIRING to reduce the risks related to nuclear threats and accidents,

-C- RESPECTING the choice of members to possess a nuclear deterrent arsenal,

-D- ALARMED by the amount of nuclear armaments of some nations exceeding their deterrent need,

-E- CONVINCED that in order to reduce these risks related to nuclear energy and weaponry, best practices and safety and security measures must be implemented and populations must be kept well informed:


-1- STRONGLY URGES all members to limit or reduce their nuclear arsenal in order to not exceed a reasonable deterrent force;

-2- CHARGES the Nuclear Energy Research Commission (NERC) created by resolution 154 to ESTABLISH the “UN Nuclear Accidents and Incidents Scale” (UNNAIS defining a 7 level gradation of nuclear incidents and accidents, related measurement procedures and adequate needed responses (where 1 indicates an on-site anomaly without contamination, and 7, a breakdown of a reactor with widespread contamination);

-3- REQUIRES that, for each area or activity maintaining or using nuclear material which might pose a risk of a UNNAIS accident at level 4 or above, an accident control plan shall be developed and maintained by national and local administrations, in coordination with neighbour nations. At a minimum, this plan shall address, wherever as appropriate, with an emergency and/or long term approach: containment, evacuation, medical response, site security and environmental response.

-4- MANDATES that, for any accident at UNNAIS level 4 or above, the public in the potentially affected area shall immediately be informed of (i) the occurrence of the incident, (ii) the amount and nature of the health risk posed, and (iii) appropriate protective measures to be taken while avoiding potential panic situations and false alarms;

-5- MANDATES that records shall be maintained of all UNNAIS incident at level 1 or above, and shall be made available for examination by the public unless required to be classified in the interest of national security;

-6- CHARGES the NERC with the following:

-6.1- to make further strong security recommendations for civil and military nuclear reactors, their facilities and the disposal and transportation of their related waste, including but not limited to:
- redundancy and maximum years of operational life for critical systems,
--control procedures and good practices,
-accident behaviour containment,
-confinement of reactors,
-structure reliability in relation to, for example, fire, natural disasters and external attacks,
-delivery of appropriate safety and decontamination equipment and medicines, and instruction, such as iodine pills to protect population from thyroid cancers,

-6.2- to offer help to members in order to comply with this document along with desiring non-members and to offer training to their nuclear facilities personal,

-6.3- to perform scheduled mandatory inspections of all civil nuclear reactors, their facilities and the disposal and transportation of their related waste, to release public report and to make related surety requirements, in accordance with this document,

-7- MANDATES that any information gathered as a result of these inspections would only be used by NERC for the purposes outlined in the proposal.

Co-authored by Sinaasappel

It looks good and we will be approving it once submitted.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Roderick Spear entered the bar with a good-looking woman. He turned to the bartender.
"A Zar ale, my good man," he said.
"I'll just have a soda," said the woman, "I don't drink."

Roderick Spear entered the bar with a good-looking woman. He turned to the bartender.
"A Zar ale, my good man," he said.
"I'll just have a soda," said the woman, "I don't drink."
I think Mr. Spear has had enough Zar ale for tonight. This isn't the bar.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Your proposition is much too vague for my liking.
It seems that lately, everyone is afraid to come out and make a political stand because they are afraid that not everyone will like it.
Well I have news for you...It's politics! No matter what you say, someone will always disagree.

So I may support your resolution if you will firm up and put some definate guidelines and rules in there instead of a multitude of vagueries.

Your proposition is much too vague for my liking.
It seems that lately, everyone is afraid to come out and make a political stand because they are afraid that not everyone will like it.
Well I have news for you...It's politics! No matter what you say, someone will always disagree.

So I may support your resolution if you will firm up and put some definate guidelines and rules in there instead of a multitude of vagueries.

We have to wonder if the representative of Harangesthenes posted this comment in the right thread. There are plenty of specific requirements in this proposal. We have some hesitation about certain provisions, which we've expressed repeatedly to the author. But to characterize this proposal as "a multitude of vagaries" is purely ridiculous.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We have to wonder if the representative of Harangesthenes posted this comment in the right thread. There are plenty of specific requirements in this proposal. We have some hesitation about certain provisions, which we've expressed repeatedly to the author. But to characterize this proposal as "a multitude of vagaries" is purely ridiculous.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Could you please state those "specific requirements" that you see? Because I don't see them. Also, requirements don't mean anything unless they can be implemented and enforced. That set of issues hasn't been addressed.

Also, requirements don't mean anything unless they can be implemented and enforced.

Unlike the real world, implementation and enforcement are both automatic and assumed. If people want to be more specific, they have to be careful about stepping on game mechanics in their proposals.

This proposal is quite specific by normal NSUN standards. If this were the real world, the passed proposal would then be handed off to a bureaucracy, who would then create 141 volumes of regulations and process documentation about who does what, and with what, and to whom. Here, we just assume it.

Could you please state those "specific requirements" that you see?
What about:
-3- REQUIRES that, for each area or activity maintaining or using nuclear material which might pose a risk of a UNNAIS accident at level 6 or above, an accident control plan shall be developed, maintained and tested by national and local administrations, in coordination with neighbour nations. At a minimum, this plan shall address, wherever as appropriate, with an emergency and/or long term approach: containment, evacuation, medical response, site security and environmental response.

-4- MANDATES that, for any accident at UNNAIS level 6 or above, the public in the potentially affected area shall immediately be informed of (i) the occurrence of the incident, (ii) the amount and nature of the health risk posed, and (iii) appropriate protective measures to be taken while avoiding potential panic situations and false alarms;

-5- MANDATES that records shall be maintained of all UNNAIS incident at level 1 or above, and shall be made available for examination by the public unless required to be classified in the interest of national security;
...
[Plus compliance with:]
-6.3- to perform scheduled and mandatory inspections of all civil nuclear reactors, their facilities and the disposal and transportation of their related waste,

Oh thats pretty, a little 1-10 ranking system.
How exactly do we know what is 1 and what is 10 other than his vague definition? No specifics are addressed here.


Also, why are we to assume that some large beauracracy takes care of everything? That would take the fun out of it. You know the old saying "If you want get get anything done, do it yourself" right? Well let's get up and do it ourselves instead of being lazy and pretending that some mystical government will "take care of it".

I also have a problem with the public inspection clause. Would the access alone to the public pose any threat inherently? I would like to know what information would and would not be available, and why that information could not be used in a potentially disastrous way.

Oh thats pretty, a little 1-10 ranking system.
How exactly do we know what is 1 and what is 10 other than his vague definition? No specifics are addressed here.
You did read that the NERC is tasked with establishing the rating system, yes?

You did read that the NERC is tasked with establishing the rating system, yes?


I seriously doubt it.

Oh thats pretty, a little 1-10 ranking system.
How exactly do we know what is 1 and what is 10 other than his vague definition? No specifics are addressed here.

The scale is to be defined by the NERC. That's plainly stated in Clause 2.

Also, why are we to assume that some large beauracracy takes care of everything? That would take the fun out of it. You know the old saying "If you want get get anything done, do it yourself" right? Well let's get up and do it ourselves instead of being lazy and pretending that some mystical government will "take care of it".

There's a difference between being lazy and acting in accordance with the way the NSUN is set up. Perhaps if you took the time to try to understand how the organization operates, it would make your comments less offensive.

I also have a problem with the public inspection clause. Would the access alone to the public pose any threat inherently? I would like to know what information would and would not be available, and why that information could not be used in a potentially disastrous way.

What "public inspection clause"? The inspections will be performed by the NERC, an NSUN instrumentality.

And we should note that we find the sneering, sarcastic tone of the representative of Harangesthenes to be inappropriate and offensive. He's impressing no one with his snide comments.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

And we should note that we find the sneering, sarcastic tone of the representative of Harangesthenes to be inappropriate and offensive. He's impressing no one with his snide comments.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Please do not speak of yourself using the term "we". Unless of course you have multiple personality syndrome. Doing such is equally arrogant and off-putting.

And to address your issue with the "public inspection clause" please see the text below:

-5- MANDATES that records shall be maintained of all UNNAIS incident at level 1 or above, and shall be made available for examination by the public unless required to be classified in the interest of national security;

Please do not speak of yourself using the term "we". Unless of course you have multiple personality syndrome. Doing such is equally arrogant and off-putting.
We are amused by this. All of us, the whole delegation.

And to address your issue with the "public inspection clause" please see the text below:

-5- MANDATES that records shall be maintained of all UNNAIS incident at level 1 or above, and shall be made available for examination by the public unless required to be classified in the interest of national security;
Do you understand the difference between a public inspection and making the records publicly available? We didn't think so.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Do you understand the difference between a public inspection and making the records publicly available? We didn't think so.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador


Isn't making a record publicly available inviting public inspection of that record? Especially when they are records pertaining to nuclear weapons?

Please do not speak of yourself using the term "we". Unless of course you have multiple personality syndrome. Doing such is equally arrogant and off-putting.

And to address your issue with the "public inspection clause" please see the text below:

-5- MANDATES that records shall be maintained of all UNNAIS incident at level 1 or above, and shall be made available for examination by the public unless required to be classified in the interest of national security;

We use the "diplomatic we". When a member of our delegation speaks, he or she speaks for the delegation, the government, and the people of our nation. It is perfectly proper usage in this Assembly. If the representative of Harangesthenes doesn't like that, tough.

What's truly arrogant is someone who waltzes into this Assembly, completely clueless about the workings of the organization, sneers and makes supercilious little snide remarks about the hard work of others, and has the effrontery to tell other members how to conduct themselves.

And, in case the representative cares to do something beyond whine and complain, we direct his attention to clause 6.3 of the proposal, which specifically addresses inspections. That, we would inform him, is something quite different from examination of records, provided for in clause 5.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We use the "diplomatic we". When a member of our delegation speaks, he or she speaks for the delegation, the government, and the people of our nation. It is perfectly proper usage in this Assembly. If the representative of Harangesthenes doesn't like that, tough.

What's truly arrogant is someone who waltzes into this Assembly, completely clueless about the workings of the organization, sneers and makes supercilious little snide remarks about the hard work of others, and has the effrontery to tell other members how to conduct themselves.

And, in case the representative cares to do something beyond whine and complain, we direct his attention to clause 6.3 of the proposal, which specifically addresses inspections. That, we would inform him, is something quite different from examination of records, provided for in clause 5.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

For the record, your insistance of using the term "we" to make yourself feel important and/or superior for whatever power trip you seem to be on is annoying and arrogant.
This is not a matter of opinion, it IS.

Oh I know about the political and beaurocratic games of the workings of the UN. I know about the delusional, "power" drunkeness that runs rampant. I know about the members who demand you run through their hoops and be subjected to their judgement, solely because they have been a member for a longer period of time.
I know about the echelons you elitists have created to "seperate" yourselves from everyone else due to your need to feel superior and accepted.

If someones "hard" work deserves to be criticized, it will be. I'm not going to pretend I approve of something if it's stupid just because someone spent a lot of time on it.

Also for the record, I am not trying to tell other members how to conduct themselves, I don't try and control anyone that way like you seem to be attempting to control me with intimidation. I am not intimidated.

Such "snide remarks" are not being made by anyone by yourself. Case and point:

And, in case the representative cares to do something beyond whine and complain...


And to address your final point, clause 6.3 involving releasing the findings of civil nuclear reactors has little if any to do with article 5.

For the record, your insistance of using the term "we" to make yourself feel important and/or superior for whatever power trip you seem to be on is annoying and arrogant.
This is not a matter of opinion, it IS.

You fail at reading comprehension. The honourable Mr Olembe has already explained his use of the word "we" as referring to multiple people. The only annoying thing about this scene is that you continue to bicker on without having the common sense or courtesy to actually pay attention to your opponent's points.

Oh I know about the political and beaurocratic games of the workings of the UN. I know about the delusional, "power" drunkeness that runs rampant. I know about the members who demand you run through their hoops and be subjected to their judgement, solely because they have been a member for a longer period of time.
I know about the echelons you elitists have created to "seperate" yourselves from everyone else due to your need to feel superior and accepted.

Quick question. Considering how incredibly well respected Mr Olembe is within these halls, do you honestly think that attacking him with such snide slander will improve your chances at acceptance within the GA, or are you hoping to make a name for yourself as the biggest and most oblivious fool within the UN? In all honesty, if you were truly that well versed with what occurs here, you would be well acquainted with the fact that the Ausserland delegation is the last group who will deride anyone for being new. You would be well acquainted with the idea that it takes true stupidity to bring out judgement from Mr Olembe. You would also be well acquainted with the support that the Ausserlanders will receive when some fool steps into the GA and decides that they are going to go toe to toe with a delegation that ranks in the highest ecchelons for respectfulness, decorum, and giving everyone a fair shot. Be forewarned. That first impression,that you are very close to blowing, will stay with you. Using it in this fashion is unwise, and such actions should be reconsidered.

If someones "hard" work deserves to be criticized, it will be. I'm not going to pretend I approve of something if it's stupid just because someone spent a lot of time on it.

Good for you. Unfortunately it also means that you either completely misunderstood the statements made or are choosing to take them completely out of context.

Also for the record, I am not trying to tell other members how to conduct themselves, I don't try and control anyone that way like you seem to be attempting to control me with intimidation. I am not intimidated.

And we return again to the slander. Nice posturing. "I am not intimidated" What do you think this is, a high-school parking lot after the dance? Mr Olembe is not handing out threats. Were you as well acquainted with this assembly as you claim to be, you would know this. You're doing a great job of adding credibility to your record here. Really, you are.

Such "snide remarks" are not being made by anyone by yourself. Case and point:

Seeing as all you have done since entering these halls is whine and complain, you should only be surprised that you haven't been haunted by these words for longer. That you drew them from any member of the Ausserland delegation is surprising. It honestly takes a great deal to do so. Congratulations! You must really be harping on.

And to address your final point, clause 6.3 involving releasing the findings of civil nuclear reactors has little if any to do with article 5.

Which is exactly what they were saying. You were claiming that something wasn't covered properly by 5. It was being pointed out that it was covered by 6.3.

Thanks for coming out. Come back when you can manage to find your own hands without tripping.

NEXT!

The Delegation from Forgottenlands is confused.

Since when did a desire to not disagree automatically come with a desire to be disrespectful? When did a desire to debate specific clauses come with a desire to treat the other representatives like they are morons? Perhaps most importantly, since when did the desire to not conform to the norms and actions of those that one feels are being "annoying and arrogant" mean that one must respond by being annoying and undeniably arrogant?

I, personally, find it odd that the Representative from Harangestenes would choose to come on here and decide to engage himself in such a tone. I wonder how the Representative got the job if he is such a disagreeable person. Perhaps the leadership of Harangestenes chose him because they are uninterested in the UN and think it should be dismantled - in which case, I wonder why they chose to be members in the first place. Perhaps they sent him simply to troll around, in which case, the Secretariat has made it clear on many occasions that they are not interested in tolerating such behavior.

However, perhaps this body should give the leadership of Harangestenes the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they did not realize how he would conduct himself in such a crowded assembly. Perhaps they should be contacted so they can educate him on various things.

Such as how a bloody role-play WORKS. Such as the concept that players of a roleplay would like to conduct themselves in a manner that reflects what real-life versions of their selves would act.

Seriously, kid, grow up. You don't have to be nasty just because you disagree.

Do you understand the difference between a public inspection and making the records publicly available? We didn't think so.

Isn't making a record publicly available inviting public inspection of that record? Especially when they are records pertaining to nuclear weapons?

I think Yelda's question got answered, here. Unintentionally by the Harangesthenes representative, to be sure, but....yeah.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

For the record, your insistance of using the term "we" to make yourself feel important and/or superior for whatever power trip you seem to be on is annoying and arrogant.
This is not a matter of opinion, it IS.

WE are not amused.*

Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

*The position of Grand Poobah, while currently an elected position, was originally a hereditary monarchy and as such can use the so-called "royal we."

Oh thats pretty, a little 1-10 ranking system.
How exactly do we know what is 1 and what is 10 other than his vague definition? No specifics are addressed here.

This clause is not very original, it's based on the RL International Nuclear Event Scale (INES):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale
There are 7 levels on the INES scale

Ausserland interestingly proposed to stick with 7 levels for the UNNIAS, in order levels to be less "vague". I prefered to keep 10, because of my sad "humancentrism", but if I'm alone to prefer 10, I can change it to 7, no pb.

This clause is not very original, it's based on the RL International Nuclear Event Scale (INES):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale
There are 7 levels on the INES scale

Ausserland interestingly proposed to stick with 7 levels for the UNNIAS, in order levels to be less "vague". I prefered to keep 10, because of my sad "humancentrism", but if I'm alone to prefer 10, I can change it to 7, no pb.

OOC:

I had two reasons for recommending a 7-level scale. If the International Atomic Energy Agency has determined the 7 levels will do the job, why do we have to have something more complicated? The more complicated you make a system, the harder it is for people to understand it and use it properly.

The second reason was that, if the number of levels was questioned in debate ("There should be 3/9/145/25 levels!"), you could point to the INES in "the mythical land of RL" to support the decision to have seven levels.

OOC:

I had two reasons for recommending a 7-level scale. If the International Atomic Energy Agency has determined the 7 levels will do the job, why do we have to have something more complicated? The more complicated you make a system, the harder it is for people to understand it and use it properly.

The second reason was that, if the number of levels was questioned in debate ("There should be 3/9/145/25 levels!"), you could point to the INES in "the mythical land of RL" to support the decision to have seven levels.

Ok, you right, thanks, I modified the draft.

Presumably if it's changed to a seven level scale, clauses 3 and 4 should be invoked by a level four, not a level six, incident.

Presumably if it's changed to a seven level scale, clauses 3 and 4 should be invoked by a level four, not a level six, incident.

That's correct.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Presumably if it's changed to a seven level scale, clauses 3 and 4 should be invoked by a level four, not a level six, incident.

Yes, thanks.