NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations,

Concerned by the threat of terrorist organizations or individuals developing and deploying radiological weapons,

Aware that while radiological dispersion devices are of little military use, they could cause massive disruption if detonated in areas of dense population,

Noting that radiological material that could plausibly be weaponised has wide legitimate application in industry, medicine and research,

Determined to prevent the acquisition of components of radiological weapons by terrorists without restricting their legitimate use,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
- a radiological weapon as one whose function is the dispersion of radiological material, but which does not achieve critical mass;
- radiological material as radioactive material which might reasonably have application in construction of a radiological weapon;

2. Prohibits the development, possession, use or transfer of radiological weapons, and any efforts to facilitate or assist in such;

3. Further prohibits the transfer of radiological material to known or suspected terrorists, or to third parties likely to facilitate such transfers;

4. Requires member nations to monitor the activities of any groups operating within their jurisdictions when there is probable cause to believe that they are involved with radiological terrorism;

5. Encourages the sharing of intelligence on such groups, as well as on other risks such as unaccounted-for radiological material;

6. Recommends that member nations prepare emergency response plans in case of radiological attack, including such measures as immediate medical response and continuity of government;

7. Suggests that member nations ensure that emergency response personnel are appropriately trained and equipped to deal with radiological terrorism, such as in the disarming of suspect devices or the provision of required medical aid;

8. Promotes responsible practices and application of appropriate security and control measures in all aspects of research, industry and services using radiological material;

9. Encourages all reasonable measures to detect unauthorised radiological material, such as radiation sensors at ports and major transportation hubs.
This is a real work in progress, so any comments on how to change it are very much invited. I'm currently particularly concerned on the preamble and on tightening the language and perhaps being a bit more specific in the latter part of the operative section; I'm more sure of the definition, though if there is a problem with it, please do say.

There's absolutely no hurry given we have four proposals in queue, and I have no intention of submitting it any time soon.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

reasonable measures to detect unauthorised radiological material, such as radiation sensors at points of communication.
I can't help but fear that many will read that and think communication as in TV, radio, webservers, etc, rather than ports of entry. Maybe there is another term you could use there. Otherwise, we support this and look forward to it being submitted. It is much needed legislation.

Naella Sìorrui
Attaché, Committee for State Security

First, if we may, a small philosophical digression which we are sure will not alter your intent to proceed with this proposal, but which we feel none the less important. This subject which you choose to address is one which creates high levels of anxiety in many, leading to the urge to legislate without first achieving understanding. We are exceedingly glad to see that you are not falling foul of this urge, but are encouraging mature and rational debate before any steps are taken.

That said, we also feel compelled to observe that most radiological substances (accepting for the moment the circular definition in clause 1) need no special dispersal device to wreak havoc; merely injecting them into the water supply, for example, will allow them to do their poisonous work. This is, of course, not a great argument against the proposal, but it merits bearing in mind in subsequent discussion.

Our greatest problems, ones which currently render it impossible for Gobbannium to support this proposal, are with clauses 3 and 4. Clause 3 attempts to prohibit the transfer of knowledge; this, apart from being a fool's errand, runs strongly counter to our philosophy that knowledge must be freely available to all, otherwise how can informed decisions be made?

Clause 4, on the other hand, requires member nations to abridge the privacy and personal freedom of their citizenry. That this abridgement is tacitly covert merely makes it all the more unacceptable. We do not believe that a government has a right to interfere in the private lives of its citizens, and a resolution that required such interference most unwelcome. Were the resolution simply to encourage such behaviour, we could live with it.

I was originally going to put 'entry/exit', but it occurred that wouldn't cover intranational travel. Maybe 'transport terminals'?

"ports of travel" or "transit hubs"?

Clause 4, on the other hand, requires member nations to abridge the privacy and personal freedom of their citizenry. That this abridgement is tacitly covert merely makes it all the more unacceptable. We do not believe that a government has a right to interfere in the private lives of its citizens, and a resolution that required such interference most unwelcome. Were the resolution simply to encourage such behaviour, we could live with it.

By the logic you are using here, the government and its law enforcement agencies should not be allowed to monitor intersections to see if people run red lights. You are implying that the police should not follow alleged drug dealers to find their supplier. You are explicitly saying that we should not follow or monitor illegal arms merchants in an attempt to break up gun running syndicates, all because watching someone walk down the street is an infringement of the personal freedom of these criminals. I understand the idea. "Everyone is entitled to privacy" and all that, but where do you draw the line on that? Do you wait until they have successfully killed thousands of people before you are willing to abridge their privacy, or is there some other way that you would like enforcement agencies to prevent these tragedies from occuring?

I was originally going to put 'entry/exit', but it occurred that wouldn't cover intranational travel. Maybe 'transport terminals'?

That might be overly broad, encompassing, for instance, every bus stop and taxi stand.

Let me, though, say that I very much like the idea behind this proposal and applaud Mr. Madison's efforts. As he has stated, it is a work in progress, but it's a damn fine start and a very important issue he's chosen to tackle.

I'd also like to invite Mr. Madison to set this proposal before DEFCON (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON), which specialises in these sorts of issues. I'm sure the members there, Cluichstan included, would be more than happy to help refine the text of this worthy proposal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Clause 4, on the other hand, requires member nations to abridge the privacy and personal freedom of their citizenry. That this abridgement is tacitly covert merely makes it all the more unacceptable. We do not believe that a government has a right to interfere in the private lives of its citizens, and a resolution that required such interference most unwelcome. Were the resolution simply to encourage such behaviour, we could live with it.

If we believed that the rights to privacy and personal freedom were absolute and inalienable, we'd agree with this. But we don't. The rights of individuals must be balanced against the rights of the people at large -- one of those rights being the right to expect the government to take proper measures to safeguard their lives and wellbeing.

Let's follow the representative's thinking to its logical conclusion. We'll ban all proactive policing. Customs inspections? Gone. Measures to prevent weapons being taken on aircraft? Cancelled. Active counterintelligence? Illegal. And, oh yes... We can't arrest any criminals or imprison them, either. That would "interfere in the private lives."

Like any other extremist view, this discards a realistic possibility -- restraint of overly-intrusive government -- in favor of pie-in-the-sky absolutism. We have some concerns with the use of the term "suspected". And perhaps "monitor" is a bit broad. We think those should be examined. But that should be done with a clear-headed, realistic, and balanced approach.

And, as an aside, the definition is [I]not circular. "Radioactive material" in the second part breaks the circle.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

OOC: Is that a new ambassador, Auss, or did I drunkenly miss something?

OOC: Is that a new ambassador, Auss, or did I drunkenly miss something?

OOC: Chortle! Remember what I told you a while back? ;)

MAJOR CHANGES AT UN
by H.H. Hammerstring
The Hauptstadt Herald
25 January 2007

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs today announced sweeping and potentially significant changes in Ausserland's representation at the NationStates United Nations.

Hon. Travilia E. Thwerdock, currently Assistant Deputy Minister for Diplomatic Operations, has been named Ambassador to the UN and head of mission. She replaces Ambassador Hurlbot Barfanger, who will assume her former duties in the Ministry.

The delegation has also been substantially expanded. Brigadier Amadeus T. Tankhurst has been seconded by the Army of Ausserland to the delegation to serve as Military Attache. Brigadier Tankhurst formerly commanded the Oldwillow Military District. Ms. Amy Beth Elliot has been appointed Administrative Assistant to the Ambassador, and Mr. Luigi P. O'Rourke has been named Special Assistant to the Ambassador.

In a closely related development, the Ministry announced that His Royal Highness has directed His Excellency, Prime Minister Balthasar H. von Aschenbach, to become personally involved in the affairs of the delegation. It's assumed that the Prime Minister will be devoting much of his time to the organization. This will free the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr. Patrick T. Olembe, to turn his attentions more to the affairs of the Ministry. Dr. Lorelei M. Ahlmann, Ambassador-at-Large, is expected to continue devoting much of her attention to UN business.

The Ministry provided no explanation for these changes. It's been rumored recently that His Royal Highness has been uncomfortable with certain recent developments in the UN and concerned that Ausserland should be responding more forcefully. Ambassador Thwerdock's reputation for taking no prisoners in diplomatic exchange, demonstrated during a former brief period as Ambassador pro tem, lends credence to the rumors. The Prime Minister is also considered much less diplomatic in his approach to international give-and-take than Dr. Olembe.

The changes come on the heels of a notable success for the delegation in its co-authorship of the "Healthcare Certification" resolution recently passed by the UN Assembly. That resolution is known to have been a "pet project" of His Royal Highness and the Princess Consort. Reliable sources cautioned that these developments should not be considered as any sort of "vote of no confidence" on the present representatives.

One source speculated that the changes may have resulted, in part, from His Royal Highness's displeasure with what he considered deceptive practices on the part of certain UN representatives and unacceptable rulings by UN management, and his belief that our delegation was not forceful enough in its objections. A senior Minstry official commented off-the-record that, unlike Dr. Olembe, the Prime Minister will not hestitate to "mix it up in the mud".

More on the new people here:

New (http://www.vguild.hostrocket.com/new_un/New_UN.html) Ausserland (http://www.vguild.hostrocket.com/new_un/New_UN.html) NSUN (http://www.vguild.hostrocket.com/new_un/New_UN.html) Representatives (http://www.vguild.hostrocket.com/new_un/New_UN.html)

Not known for mincing words, [Thwerdock] once described a senior foreign diplomat as "famous for being the dimmest bulb in the diplomatic chandelier"
Gee, I wonder what his nationality was. :rolleyes:

Can we expect Amb. Harhdkaess at least to stay put?

[EDIT: Hang on, I'll bump the Meet the Reps! thread. It's a better idea than threadjacking. ;)]

I was originally going to put 'entry/exit', but it occurred that wouldn't cover intranational travel. Maybe 'transport terminals'?

"ports of travel" or "transit hubs"?
How about "such as radiation sensors at port facilities, border crossings and major transportation hubs"? That would allow nations to decide what qualifies as a "major transportation hub". Or, you could say "ports of entry and major transportation hubs". "Ports of entry" would cover seaports, border crossings and international airports, "major transportation hubs" could cover everything internal, such as river ports, regional airports, rail centers, etc. But it wouldn't necessarily include bus stations, taxi stands and things like that

OOC: Chortle! Remember what I told you a while back? ;)

OOC: No, I don't. Yikes! I must've been completely in the bag! Bugger all!

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

If we believed that the rights to privacy and personal freedom were absolute and inalienable, we'd agree with this. But we don't.

We respect your difference of philosophy in this matter, and hope that you will respect our differences as well.

Let's follow the representative's thinking to its logical conclusion. We'll ban all proactive policing.

That would indeed be a fairly accurate summary of Gobbannium's Home Affairs policy.

That would indeed be a fairly accurate summary of Gobbannium's Home Affairs policy.

Sheik Nadnerb leaned over to his assistant, Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel, and whispered to him.

Wow, Gobbannium must be a fucking mess. Remind me never to go there.

As usual, Tarquin stared off into space and said nothing.

http://www.montypython.art.pl/obrazki/lcmp19-15.jpg

You said you were concerned about the preamble. I only see some minor things that should be changed.
Concerned by the danger of terrorist organizations or individuals developing and deploying radiological weapons,
I would use "threat".

Aware that whilst radiological dispersion devices are of little military use, they could cause massive disruption if detonated in areas of dense population,
I would use "while". Also, I'm not sure that they are of any military use. I'm trying to think of an example of an an actual radiological weapon and why you might prefer to use it rather than a conventional weapon, or even a real nuclear weapon. If you were just wanting to spread radiation then surely a neutron bomb would be more effective. No, I think these are pure "terror weapons" which would only be used by irregular groups for political and/or psychological effect. I'd use the "magic words" and declare them "unnecessary for national defense".

Noting that radiological material that could plausibly be weaponised has wide application in industry, medicine and research,
Good.

Wishing to prevent the acquisition of components of radiological weapons by terrorists without restricting their legitimate use,
Determined.

Also, I'm not sure that they are of any military use. I'm trying to think of an example of an an actual radiological weapon and why you might prefer to use it rather than a conventional weapon, or even a real nuclear weapon. If you were just wanting to spread radiation then surely a neutron bomb would be more effective. No, I think these are pure "terror weapons" which would only be used by irregular groups for political and/or psychological effect. I'd use the "magic words" and declare them "unnecessary for national defense".


Radiological weapons do have military application; whether it's a legitimate or worthwhile one is another question, and a good one. Radiological weapons can be used to attack the infrastructure of an enemy nation: rendering financial centers, food production areas, etc., uninhabitable. Terror is also a tool for the military, only we don't call it that. We just say we're conducting "psychological warfare".

Radiological weapons are of extremely limited value against opposing military forces. About all they'd be good for is as area denial weapons in a pure tortoise-shell defense. Not worth the bother.

Why use them instead of nuclear weapons? Because they're relatively cheap and easy to put together.

So, the question comes down to whether their value for military purposes outweighs the dangers they pose. We say it most certainly does not, and we're looking forward to supporting the proposal.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst, Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

Alright, thanks for the comments. The draft has been updated a little, mainly in line with the suggestions of the unpronouncable representative of Yelda.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director

I'd use the "magic words" and declare them "unnecessary for national defense".
Bollocks, hadn't considered that.

Alright, thanks for the comments. The draft has been updated a little, mainly in line with the suggestions of the unpronouncable representative of Yelda.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Yes, I can see how it would be a difficult name for non-Yeldans to pronounce. I wish sometimes that I had a more common name like Comrade Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú.


Naella Sìorrui
Attaché, Committee for State Security

I'm totally taking away your character map...

Some updates have been made.

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/223/untitledzf8.png

George Madison was watching the news (http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/9057/untitledng0.png); it was quite rare to be able to see a news show, given most of the television these days was occupied with unoriginal adverts for slightly different international news networks vying for the enviable privilege of interviewing Nutsack Dictator #7678. The scrolling banner at the moment noted the proposal had reached quorum, and he began rubbing his eyes wearily.

"A proposal that uses the word 'terrorism'. This is going to be fun..."

Sheik Nadnerb smirks.

Maybe you should've called it "Radiological Freedom Fighting," George.