NationStates Jolt Archive

Nuclear Responsibility

-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 safety 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

Many nations had helped us to improve this proposal and we would like to thank them.

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_"

In RL, the scale is called International Nuclear Event Scale (INES):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale

Here is the drafting thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=513328
and here is another thread about it:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=515624

Voted for. I still think -D- and -1- could have been left out, but otherwise it's a solid Resolution and I'm proud to support it. Good luck.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

voted for too.

this is exactly what the UN needs. less uranium minning..
my nation started with uranium minning at the top but it was crushed down to a second place due to lots of envirementaly good decisions.

with this resolution i hope to stop the uranium in my own country. and hopefully in others too.

I had my assistant, Mr. Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel, prepare a short film as to why members of this austere body should vote against this proposal, but after that debacle (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12267323&postcount=42) during the debate on the previous proposal to come to the floor, I'm afraid to screen it.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Sorry, but I had to vote against the proposal on grounds that there is no provision mandating the proper training, both in normal operations and emergency proceedures, of personnel operating and\or maintaining nuclear facilities. If not for that, I would have glady supported it.

This resolution is lengthy, unfocused, and anti-industry. It covers a variety of issues, from nuclear weapons to environmental regulations, and for that reason, I will be voting against the resolution. Why should the United Nations step in and regulate energy that is more properly regulated by individual nations? We all understand the dangers of uranium and nuclear weapons, but how about looking into regulation that strengthens international security instead of trying to destroy a strong and prosperous industry? Vote this down.

The Democratic Republic of Ritico
Member: Conservative Republics

Gallantaria will oppose the new UN proposition about nuclear responsability. It affects the uranium mining industry and therefore the economy of many nations in Europe (and in the world).

Second problem is, it stresses dangers that might happen with nuclear energy but does not lose a word about the dangers that will happen if other forms of energy are favorised.

This resolution is lengthy, unfocused, and anti-industry. It covers a variety of issues, from nuclear weapons to environmental regulations, and for that reason, I will be voting against the resolution. Why should the United Nations step in and regulate energy that is more properly regulated by individual nations? We all understand the dangers of uranium and nuclear weapons, but how about looking into regulation that strengthens international security instead of trying to destroy a strong and prosperous industry? Vote this down.

The Democratic Republic of Ritico
Member: Conservative Republics

I voted for it. I believe that you have not thought much on this Ritco. Nuclear energy/weapons affect the environment greatly. Also, leaving regulation to individual nations is a bad idea. When a nuclear weapon is used or a reactor explodes, it causes a large amount of radiation. This radiation eventually spreads to other parts of the world. I don't want my citizens dying because of someone else's mistake, do you?

The Dominion heartily agrees with those who have chosen to vote against this resolution. It would damage the economy of many nations and it is far too restricting. It makes no mention of alternate energies which will have to be utilised by countries that are dependant on Nuclear power. Voted against.

Lord Booker
Dominion representative to United Nations

Gallantaria will oppose the new UN proposition about nuclear responsability. It affects the uranium mining industry and therefore the economy of many nations in Europe (and in the world).

Second problem is, it stresses dangers that might happen with nuclear energy but does not lose a word about the dangers that will happen if other forms of energy are favorised.

What good is an economy if your people are dying of cancer because of it.

What good is an economy if your people are dying of cancer because of it.

What the shit?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

In my preferred method, I'll go over this.


-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,

A nice setup. It sounds like it might be going somewhere.

-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,

If we're going to be branching into arms legislation, perhaps it would be best done by something that deals specifically with that. Since the rest of this proposal barely even considers the specifics of dealing with military usage of nuclear materials, they shouldn't be mentioned.

-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:

Sure.

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

Being the only thing that looks at weaponry, and does absolutely nothing, I have a minor objection to this being in here at all. "Reasonable Deterrent Force" is a very interpretable phrase that will allow nations to have whatever they want. I understand that there are other resolutions that already deal with them, and cover them much more thoroughly, but that lead back to the question of why include them in this at all.

-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);


I've previously mentioned my distaste for using previously created commissions in such a fashion. It makes sense in its own way, but I'm not comfortable with it.

-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;

Here's where the real problems start to arise. So, the nations must have accident control plans developed and maintained. Great. We've got them. Any national government that is at all concerned with the well-being of their populace will have them. So? Now every UN nation will have them. Good. Not a real issue. It doesn't accomplish a damn thing unless you make them use them, though. Having the plan is not enough. The plan must be put into action. Again, nations that don't want to irradiate their citizens will do this anyways. It's those that aren't concerned with the well-being of their people that are of a concern, though. They won't. Why? Time, effort, money, apathy, any number of reasons. Without that mandate to act on those action plans, the plans mean nothing.

-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;

Alright. This is almost a step in the right direction. What I fear is that what some populaces will get is something along the lines of this:
i) there has been an occurance at reactor x
ii) there will likely be some fallout in surrounding areas
iii) there is little cause for alarm, though, as all appropriate protective measures are already being enacted by local authorities.
Meanwhile, what really happened is that reactor x has undergone a catastrophic meltdown, the fallout will be devastating to all living things in the area, and the reason that there is no cause for alarm is that there is nothing that can possibly be done to stave off the impending painful and horrific deaths of everyone and everything in the area. The government has already quarantined the locale to keep further contamination minimized.

-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;

Assuming that NERC does an adequate job of categorizing and filing the various incidents, cross referencing by a number of factors (reactor type, type of incident, location, etc), then this isn't a bad idea.

-6- CHARGES the NERC with the following:

-6.1- to make further strong safety 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,

If these were more than recommendations, then it might be worth something. As is, those previously mentioned nations that aren't concerned with the safety of their people are going to ignore them.

-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,

Again, those that wish to will have no issues with compliance. There is little that any nation need to do to meet the requirements of this one.

-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,

Which is fine, unless those nations that do not wish to have their reactors inspected put them under military control to avoid them.

-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.


Which doesn't really do that much anyways.

Sorry, but I had to vote against the proposal on grounds that there is no provision mandating the proper training, both in normal operations and emergency proceedures, of personnel operating and\or maintaining nuclear facilities. If not for that, I would have glady supported it.

And there's that too. I hadn't really given much thought to that aspect before, but EE here is right. If you want to lower the risk levels, mandate that all personnel working in these locations must undergo thorough, extensive, and comprehensive training so that they are fully prepared to deal with the sensitive materials and any potential risks in the best possible fashion.

The Dominion of Kivisto and the Kivistan UN Bordello are going on the record as being AGAINST this proposal.

We have decided, after much analysis, to vote against. We find the exhortations to disarm distasteful, and beyond that the addition of duties to the NERC is unnecessary.

Therefore, we will be voting AGAINST.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro-Tempore

I voted for it. I believe that you have not thought much on this Ritco. Nuclear energy/weapons affect the environment greatly.

Not if you use them responsibly. This proposal will not help ensure safety from those who have no desire to be safe with their materials.

Also, leaving regulation to individual nations is a bad idea.

Justify that.

When a nuclear weapon is used or a reactor explodes, it causes a large amount of radiation.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

This radiation eventually spreads to other parts of the world.

So, you're telling me that if the smallest possible nuclear reactor suffers a meltdown in the geographical center of, say, The Most Glorious Hack, a nation of somewhere in the vicinity of 8 billion people, that the fallout will somehow travel the what can only be assumed to be thousands of miles to land on neighbouring soil, instead of only contaminating the surrounding 10 miles or so, as might be more rational. That's special.

I don't want my citizens dying because of someone else's mistake, do you?

I don't even know your citizens. I'm pretty indifferent to how they are affected by the mistakes of others.

Ausserland has cast its vote AGAINST the resolution. The portions of the resolution pertaining to nuclear surety are, with one exception, quite worthwhile. However, there are two items we find completely objectionable.

-D- ALARMED by the amount of nuclear armaments of some nations exceeding their deterrent need,
and
-1- STRONGLY URGES all members to limit or reduce their nuclear arsenal in order to not exceed a reasonable deterrent force;

In a proposal which could have properly restricted itself to promoting the safety of citizens from nuclear accidents, the author insisted on slipping in a disarmament provision. Nations are urged to reduce their nuclear armaments to levels necessary for deterrence. Note that the term is deterrence, not defense. This places the NSUN on record as believing that deterrence is the only valid purpose for nuclear weapons. We cannot accept this. We believe, as is provided in NSUNR #109, "Nuclear Armaments", that nations should be "allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations". Deterrence is but one aspect of defense. The ability to respond effectively to attack is an equally valid requirement.

And oh, we know, our colleagues who support the resolution will probably respond: "But it's only a STRONGLY URGES clause!" True, but we believe that the non-mandatory clauses in resolutions are significant parts of them. As in this case, they often proclaim NSUN policy on issues. If this aspect of the resolution isn't important and we shouldn't be concerned about it, why did the author repeatedly and adamantly refuse to remove it when advised to do so?

Our second objection has to do with this provision:

-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,

In clause 6.1, the NERC is charged with making recommendations for surety measures. But now, in this clause, we suddenly find them empowered to levy requirements. In other words, they are given blanket authority to force nations to comply with their wishes on surety matters. There's nothing that allows nations to consider economic factors or the other needs of their citizens in making desisions about surety. If the NERC decides something should be done, the nation has no option but to follow orders. Unacceptable.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

In clause 6.1, the NERC is charged with making recommendations for surety measures. But now, in this clause, we suddenly find them empowered to levy requirements. In other words, they are given blanket authority to force nations to comply with their wishes on surety matters. There's nothing that allows nations to consider economic factors or the other needs of their citizens in making desisions about surety. If the NERC decides something should be done, the nation has no option but to follow orders. Unacceptable.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

Apparently I need my vision checked, or I'm getting rusty at this. I would like to offer my personal thanks to Attache Tankhurst for pointing out this rather horrid issue.

Now I wish I had some way of voting against this for a second time.

We're with Mr. Tankhurst and the respected Ausserlander delegation entirely on this one as well. We've had problems with the language towards military nuclear capabilities from the very first draft put before this august assembly.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Now I wish I had some way of voting against this for a second time.

OOC: You can. You just have to move to Chicago. You can vote as many times as you like there. ;)

First off, I would like to apologize for my hasty appearance here, but our Ambassador has been called back to Altanar for consultations with the government.

Second, I would like to reaffirm Altanar's stance towards this resolution. As we have stated previously, Clause 6.1 requires the NERC "to make further strong safety recommendations for civil and military nuclear reactors". However, clause 6.3 allows NERC only "to perform scheduled mandatory inspections of all civil nuclear reactors". We find no valid reason to exempt military facilities from inspection - they are just as prone to accidents as civilian ones. Therefore, Altanar opposes this resolution.

- Jinella Agaranth, Acting Ambassador

In a proposal which could have properly restricted itself to promoting the safety of citizens from nuclear accidents, the author insisted on slipping in a disarmament provision. Nations are urged to reduce their nuclear armaments to levels necessary for deterrence. Note that the term is deterrence, not defense. This places the NSUN on record as believing that deterrence is the only valid purpose for nuclear weapons. We cannot accept this. We believe, as is provided in NSUNR #109, "Nuclear Armaments", that nations should be "allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations". Deterrence is but one aspect of defense. The ability to respond effectively to attack is an equally valid requirement.
It is unfortunate that the language pertaining to nuclear arsenals was included against the advice of several delegations. As we have stated before, we agree with you on these points, though not strongly enough to vote against.

In clause 6.1, the NERC is charged with making recommendations for surety measures. But now, in this clause, we suddenly find them empowered to levy requirements. In other words, they are given blanket authority to force nations to comply with their wishes on surety matters. There's nothing that allows nations to consider economic factors or the other needs of their citizens in making desisions about surety. If the NERC decides something should be done, the nation has no option but to follow orders. Unacceptable.
The requirements that NERC is capable of making are in accordance with this document. In other words, the requirements will have to be related to the parts of the document which are mandatory anyway. NERC can't dream up new requirements which aren't covered in the text, nor can it make the non-mandatory parts mandatory.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

However, clause 6.3 allows NERC only "to perform scheduled mandatory inspections of all civil nuclear reactors". We find no valid reason to exempt military facilities from inspection - they are just as prone to accidents as civilian ones.
You would have wanted NERC poking around in your military facilities? If that had been included in the text then we would be opposing it.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

-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;


Ambassador Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov) bounces her four year-old son on her knee, then looks up and speaks into the microphone on her desk.

"Regarding clause f-"

The noise blasts out at top volume, shattering a few eardrums. Zyryanov grimaces, and resets the volume.

"Sorry. Kid was playing with the volume. As I was saying, regarding clause 4, that looks rather like closing the stable door after the proverbial horse. We would have preferred a clause mandating that all population within the vicinity of a site containing nuclear material be informed in advance of relevent safety procedures.

Still. The rest is good."

Did I just read that right? "... and to make related surety requirements ..."

What the heck is a surety? Where's my Webster?

1 : the state of being sure: as a : sure knowledge : CERTAINTY b : confidence in manner or behavior : ASSURANCE
2 a : a formal engagement (as a pledge) given for the fulfillment of an undertaking : GUARANTEE b : a basis of confidence or security
3 : one who has become legally liable for the debt, default, or failure in duty of another

Oh now I see ... no I still don't.

It must be another Blonde moment.

Or it could be a typo.

Unfortunately my seretary is on vacation. My assistants have reminded me that in an or statement both parts could in theory be true at the same time.

Did I just read that right? "... and to make related surety requirements ..."

What the heck is a surety? Where's my Webster?



Oh now I see ... no I still don't.

It must be another Blonde moment.

Or it could be a typo.

Unfortunately my seretary is on vacation. My assistants have reminded me that in an or statement both parts could in theory be true at the same time.

Surety is a widely-used and widely-accepted term of art in military affairs. It refers to a program which encompasses safety, security, and associated efforts regarding a type of weapon or material. We quote the definition of "Nuclear Weapon Surety" from the Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms published by the Department of Defense in the mythical land of the United States:

Materiel, personnel, and procedures that contribute to the security, safety, and reliability of nuclear weapons and to the assurance that there will be no nuclear weapon accidents, incidents, unauthorized weapon detonations, or degradation in performance at the target.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

For the sake of demonstrating our point more fully, I'd like to engage in a little bit of Make-Believe. I'm going to pretend that I run or represent the interests of a nation that is not overly concerned with our nuclear safety procedures, or the safety of our people in general. I'm going to go over the rough reaction that my nation would have to this proposal being passed into law.

There's the preamble. Ignored, for the most part. It's gobbledegook that only serves to get the reader into the desired mood. The bit about disarmament will have my ears up a little, but it is only preamble. No biggie.

Clause 1 will make us snicker. Seriously.

Clause 2 will be completely ignored as it has nothing to do with the nation at all.

Clause 3 will result in us putting together a series of plans that state something along the lines of: Get the truck outta dodge, euthanize the seriously affected, flash burn the surrounding envorinment, and shoot to kill anyone who tries to get too close to the area after the fact.

For clause 4, we'll pre-record a PSA video that runs along the lines of: "Shit's goin down, you're all gonna die, try to leave your homes and you'll be shot on sight."

Clause 5 is another target for complete apathy. Wheeee. They're keeping records. Good for them.

6.1 and 6.2 get big heaping servings of "Whatever", as we choose to ignore the recommendations and offers.

To deal with 6.3, we relegate control of every nuclear facility of any nature, whether it was publicly or privately owned beforehand, to the military. They are now military installations and free from scrutiny.

7 falls under the canopy of apathetic ignorance once again.

So we're left with what? An afternoon of some officials making some joke plans and announcement recordings. In the end, it'll probably cause our overall safety records to drop. A fact that we may well be proud of, for some bizarre and unfathomable reason.

On the other side of things, there's the rational, safety conscious nation. They almost definitely have these procedures in place already, as many of them make sense.

So what ground does the UN gain by passing this? We will have effectively blocked proper legislation in this area with a useless piece of paper. I'm almost tempted to support it just so that there can't be further efforts towards regulating national nuclear usage. I just can't quite get behind it, though. I can't bring myself to vote for something so well intentioned that completely fails to accomplish anything that it sets out to do.

The requirements that NERC is capable of making are in accordance with this document. In other words, the requirements will have to be related to the parts of the document which are mandatory anyway. NERC can't dream up new requirements which aren't covered in the text, nor can it make the non-mandatory parts mandatory.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Sorry. The argument presented by the distinguished representative of Yelda looks good, but we can't buy it. Let's look at this again....

If, as the representative states, the only requirements that the NERC can "make" under clause 6.3 are already required in the resolution, the NERC couldn't "make" them, could it? They'd already be "made". We believe that this clause empowers the NERC to levy as a requirement any measure listed in clause 6.1. Otherwise, the clause would be meaningless.

We don't believe that's the case. We believe the clear intent is to give the NERC the power to mandate measures that it would, under clause 6.1, only be empowered to recommend. There is no reason to expect that, in doing so, they would take into account the many factors -- beyond those strictly pertaining to surety -- that should be taken into account in the decision-making. We will not accept this.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

This is General Apollo Wall, President of The Federation of Militant Territories.

My people and I are proud to cast our first vote in the United Nations AGAINST this resolution.

As many others have stated, this resolution is poorly written and poorly constructed, rife with misleading, pointless and contradictory language. In addition, it attempts to regulate government, industry, the military, and many other institutions all at once, whereas each regulation could very well warrant a separate resolution in and of itself.

My nation makes some use of nuclear power, in part to grant us a measure of independence from petroleum-exporting nations. We refuse to cede control of our nuclear facilities to an outside government-- to do so would be to accept an egregious breach of our national sovereignty. Furthermore, my people reserve the right to develop nuclear weapons if we should so please in order to protect us from potentially hostile nations-- to accept any limitation on that right would be to accept another egregious breach of our national sovereignty.

Thus, The Federation of Militant Territories stringently and vehemently opposes this resolution, and we urge our brothers and sisters to join us in our opposition.

Sorry. The argument presented by the distinguished representative of Yelda looks good, but we can't buy it. Let's look at this again....

If, as the representative states, the only requirements that the NERC can "make" under clause 6.3 are already required in the resolution, the NERC couldn't "make" them, could it? They'd already be "made". We believe that this clause empowers the NERC to levy as a requirement any measure listed in clause 6.1. Otherwise, the clause would be meaningless.

We don't believe that's the case. We believe the clear intent is to give the NERC the power to mandate measures that it would, under clause 6.1, only be empowered to recommend. There is no reason to expect that, in doing so, they would take into account the many factors -- beyond those strictly pertaining to surety -- that should be taken into account in the decision-making. We will not accept this.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister
We respectfully disagree with our Ausserlander colleagues on the interpretation of "in accordance with this document". Plainly, the interpretation will be quite different in our two nations.

On a side note, I am puzzled as to why the Ausserlander delegation chose not to raise this issue during the drafting phase. It would have been easy enough to revise the text and ameliorate your concerns. If these concerns were raised during drafting, then I apologize in advance, but I can find no evidence that they ever were.

Regards
Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

We too are displeased that a resolution seeking to regulate the safety of nations' nuclear energy facilities would distract itself from its central purpose by lecturing members about the size of their nuclear arsenals. We are relieved to see that we are not the only ones sharing that important concern. Clause 1 we feel is an outrageous aberration marring what could have have been an excellent piece of legislation assuring the safety of those who live in the vicinity of nuclear-power plants -- and in fact to us smacks as category violation. Looking back, we really should have petitioned the Secretariat to remove this item from docket in the interests of preserving coherence and relevance in international law. We doubt the moderators would have upheld our grievance, but it's too late to do anything about that now.

The Federal Republic votes against.

Cmdr. Jenny Chaing
Security Attache to the United Nations

You would have wanted NERC poking around in your military facilities? If that had been included in the text then we would be opposing it.

Altanar has no nuclear weapons, nor any desire to obtain any. We find them to be distasteful and dishonorable devices to wage war with. Therefore, we wouldn't have anything for NERC to "poke around" in that would be a concern, security wise.

And we do still maintain that a military facility can be just as unsafe as a civilian one. We don't begrudge other nations the right to have their toys. We just feel that trying to protect people from nuclear accidents, and excluding an entire class of nuclear facilities, is counterproductive at best, and silly at worst.

- Jinella Agaranth, Acting Ambassador

In my preferred method, I'll go over this.
Here's where the real problems start to arise. So, the nations must have accident control plans developed and maintained. Great. We've got them. Any national government that is at all concerned with the well-being of their populace will have them. So? Now every UN nation will have them. Good. Not a real issue. It doesn't accomplish a damn thing unless you make them use them, though. Having the plan is not enough. The plan must be put into action. Again, nations that don't want to irradiate their citizens will do this anyways. It's those that aren't concerned with the well-being of their people that are of a concern, though. They won't. Why? Time, effort, money, apathy, any number of reasons. Without that mandate to act on those action plans, the plans mean nothing.
We must respectfully disagree with the representative from Kivisto on this point. Mandating that plans be followed works only in so far as those plans match the situation as it unfolds. Tying the hands of those implementing disaster recovery plans so that using their initiative becomes illegal is highly inadvisible, and is likely to serve only to make matters worse.

It has been said with great frequency and vehemence that no plan survives contact with the enemy. In the case of the plans this proposal seeks to require, the disaster itself is the enemy!

Alright. This is almost a step in the right direction. What I fear is that what some populaces will get is something along the lines of this:
i) there has been an occurance at reactor x
ii) there will likely be some fallout in surrounding areas
iii) there is little cause for alarm, though, as all appropriate protective measures are already being enacted by local authorities.
Meanwhile, what really happened is that reactor x has undergone a catastrophic meltdown, the fallout will be devastating to all living things in the area, and the reason that there is no cause for alarm is that there is nothing that can possibly be done to stave off the impending painful and horrific deaths of everyone and everything in the area. The government has already quarantined the locale to keep further contamination minimized.

We can't see how this fulfills the resolution, as the populace have not in fact been informed about the ongoing disaster. Informing them concerning a ficticious accident that they are being lead to believe corresponds to the actual situation, or 'lying' as my secretary insists on referring to it, is clearly another matter entirely.

I am against this pathetic piece of complete and utter disdainful garbage. For 1 thing the entire program invites our citizens to stroll in and have a look at our reports unless this will threaten national law. Letting random people into nuclear power houses without authorization is asking for terrorism. Then there the gushing wound this would create in the economic balance. There would have to be entire health care programs set up so we can be less armed. There is also the effects of lower power production due to this system of danger. We would be in continuous threat of having to pay millions to people living near by, when they should have insurance by default. So that's another few million on top of the repairs to the reactor etc... No there are too many holes in this for Soniopia's support. My Nation can look after its own nuclear safety without it being shoved down our throats!

Nezumiiro Kitsune
:mad: :mad:

We must respectfully disagree with the representative from Kivisto on this point. Mandating that plans be followed works only in so far as those plans match the situation as it unfolds. Tying the hands of those implementing disaster recovery plans so that using their initiative becomes illegal is highly inadvisible, and is likely to serve only to make matters worse.

It has been said with great frequency and vehemence that no plan survives contact with the enemy. In the case of the plans this proposal seeks to require, the disaster itself is the enemy!

What I was saying is that this document contains no mandate to make any action at all once there has been a disaster of some sort. The government would be free and clear to lockdown the area and ignore the whole situation after notifying the public.

We can't see how this fulfills the resolution, as the populace have not in fact been informed about the ongoing disaster. Informing them concerning a ficticious accident that they are being lead to believe corresponds to the actual situation, or 'lying' as my secretary insists on referring to it, is clearly another matter entirely.

It would meet the requirements as they were detailed.

What the resolution says:
(i) the occurrence of the incident,
What I offer:
Inform them that there has been an occurance at reactor x
How it meets requirements:
It tells the public that something has happened and even tells them where. It neglects to mention severity, but severity isn't required.

Resolution
(ii) the amount and nature of the health risk posed, and
Me
there will likely be some fallout in surrounding areas
How
It tells them that there are better than even odds that there will be some health risks of a radioactive nature in the areas surrounding the incident. It neglects to say that likely should be read as almost definitely, and that "fallout" is referring to an impending nuclear wasteland. Again, these details are not required.

Reso:
(iii) appropriate protective measures to be taken while avoiding potential panic situations and false alarms;
Me:
there is little cause for alarm, though, as all appropriate protective measures are already being enacted by local authorities.
How:
it avoids potential panic by telling them that everything that can be done is already being done. There is nothing the public can do, so why worry them. It neglects to tell them that there is nothing that anybody can do at all because the damage is too severe and their burial plots are already being dug for them. Once again, details that are not being requested nor required. It isn't a false alarm, so that doesn't apply at all, although there should be some concern about situations where double checking facts to ensure that it isn't a false alarm could waste valuable time better spent saving lives, but that's beside the point I'm making.

Fact is, what I offered is a viable scenario, and the authorities would not be lying, nor would they be in contravention of this proposal. For that matter, with this in place, there is nothing that the UN could do to stop unscrupulous governments from doing exactly what I detailed were such a thing to occur, as they would be in full compliance with the only piece of legislation regarding the matter, even if they were to neglect to do anything about it past the PSA.

One other note regarding the required sureties, The Dominion has decided to interpret that clause as reading thusly:

If a nation meets the requirements offered by NERC, NERC would be able to act as a "surety", or guarantor, that the facilities are safe. We are opting for one of the non-military definitions as these surety requirements are to be aimed at civil facilities, not military. As such, these requirements sound nice on paper, but fail to be binding unless the nation wishes a UN committee to declare their reactors safe. Which would also somewhat implicate NERC as being somewhat liable for any malfunctions from those plants that act as surety as regards safety.

Why do we choose that interpretation? Aside from the aforementioned civil vs military reactor thing, it fits with our argument that this resolution completely fails to accomplish what it is aiming to do.

And we still haven't really gotten into the fact that not a single part of the active clauses in any way deals with reductions in uranium mining, or protection of the environment, save for that one tiny bit in the action control plan that nations don't have to follow through on anyways.

REQUIRES that, ..., an accident control plan shall be developed and maintained ...this plan shall address, ...environmental response;

And that's it.

We respectfully disagree with our Ausserlander colleagues on the interpretation of "in accordance with this document". Plainly, the interpretation will be quite different in our two nations.

The distinguished representative of Yelda is quite right. On this matter, it seems we must agree to disagree. We stand firm on our interpretation. And we'd also point out that it makes little difference how you or we interpret this. We hold that passage of this resolution will give unfettered license to the NERC to dictate our nations' nuclear surety programs, no matter how an individual nation may read the clause.

On a side note, I am puzzled as to why the Ausserlander delegation chose not to raise this issue during the drafting phase. It would have been easy enough to revise the text and ameliorate your concerns. If these concerns were raised during drafting, then I apologize in advance, but I can find no evidence that they ever were.

The representative of Yelda is quite well aware that, in another venue, we made a number of suggestions for changes to the surety provisions of the draft, most of which were adopted. We also argued strongly against inclusion of the "deterrent" clauses. We were told by the author, both publicly and privately, that those clauses were "off the table" and not open to further discussion. At that point, we determined that we would not support the proposal and discontinued our participation in its drafting. Frankly, we felt we'd done enough.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Sorry, but I had to vote against the proposal on grounds that there is no provision mandating the proper training, both in normal operations and emergency proceedures, of personnel operating and\or maintaining nuclear facilities. If not for that, I would have glady supported it.

I agree that there needs to be proper training especially with nuclear inspectors etc., however, this piece of legislation needs to be passed as it is a step in the right direction. We can not impose legislation that completes every problem on the spot; it has to be subtle, slow, and careful. We can always come back and rewrite legislation so as to suit our need and the needs of the UN countries, but for the time being, do what is right and safe for the UN countries. I hope that all others who have not voted for this legislation to vote in favor of it and those who have already voted, to change their vote.

We just feel that trying to protect people from nuclear accidents, and excluding an entire class of nuclear facilities, is counterproductive at best, and silly at worst.

- Jinella Agaranth, Acting Ambassador

We understand fully the concern of the Ambassador of Altanar. We tried to write this proposal with a pragmatical approach. We think that trying to protect people from "civil" nuclear accidents is better than nothing and we were thinking that mandating inspections for "military" nuclear facilities will decrease the credibility of this body towards lany of its members.

Furthermore you can notice that clause -3- and -4-, about plan and alerts in case of accident at UNNAIS level 4 or above along with -6.1-, safety recommendations apply to both civil and military facilities.

This resolution is lengthy, unfocused, and anti-industry. It covers a variety of issues, from nuclear weapons to environmental regulations, and for that reason, I will be voting against the resolution. Why should the United Nations step in and regulate energy that is more properly regulated by individual nations? We all understand the dangers of uranium and nuclear weapons, but how about looking into regulation that strengthens international security instead of trying to destroy a strong and prosperous industry? Vote this down.

The Democratic Republic of Ritico
Member: Conservative Republics

I really don’t see how this proposal destroy this industry. This industry has potential dangers and it’s for the own interest to commit with safety good practices in order to be credible, respected and used.

If, as the representative states, the only requirements that the NERC can "make" under clause 6.3 are already required in the resolution, the NERC couldn't "make" them, could it? They'd already be "made". We believe that this clause empowers the NERC to levy as a requirement any measure listed in clause 6.1. Otherwise, the clause would be meaningless.

We don't believe that's the case. We believe the clear intent is to give the NERC the power to mandate measures that it would, under clause 6.1, only be empowered to recommend. There is no reason to expect that, in doing so, they would take into account the many factors -- beyond those strictly pertaining to surety -- that should be taken into account in the decision-making. We will not accept this.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

As power plants can be very different from a nation to another, it seemed to us that it could be difficult to the NERC to “mandates” safety practice “in general”, it’s why -6.1- is only “strong safety recommendations”.
But when an inspection is done and one-to-one hands-in-hands work is made between the NERC and a nuclear power, then specific requirements can be made, and we really think that it can be then useful that these improvements be required while respecting the text and the aim of this proposal.

I hope this is an answer your actual comments, if I didn’t correctly understand it please let me know.

Upon reading the newly proposed legislation, the UN ambassador from Crythythia quickly scibbled off a short letter detailing his response.

"We find that, while we are against the possession of nuclear weapons, we can not support this legislation. It is well meant, however, if we can not abide legislation that doesn't actually do anything purposeful.

Signed,
Lio Vandenberg, Crythythian Ambassador to the United Nations"

I agree that there needs to be proper training especially with nuclear inspectors etc., however, this piece of legislation needs to be passed as it is a step in the right direction.

No, it really isn't. It's a step towards tripping up further steps in this direction.

We can not impose legislation that completes every problem on the spot; it has to be subtle, slow, and careful.

No, it really doesn't. For example, with undesirable weapons systems, you ban them outright. You don't piecemeal it. We're not looking for a solution to every problem. Some of us just want a proposal that actually does what it purports to do.

We can always come back and rewrite legislation so as to suit our need and the needs of the UN countries,

No, we can't. Should this pass and we wish to develop further legislation in the matter, we would need to repeal this bill to make room for the new proposal. All this would do is add an unnecessary step to proper legislation.

but for the time being, do what is right and safe for the UN countries.

I never really understood the mentality that would prefer an inherently flawed law on the books over no law at all. I still don't.

I hope that all others who have not voted for this legislation to vote in favor of it and those who have already voted, to change their vote.

I, for one, will not be changing my vote. I'd strongly encourage others to firmly stand against this proposal, but most of the voters here have already decided upon their stances and aren't easily moved from them.

We understand fully the concern of the Ambassador of Altanar. We tried to write this proposal with a pragmatical approach.

A better pragmatic approach would have been to strip the unnecessary railing against nuclear weapons in the document. We don't like nuclear weapons either, but putting that language in the document severely hurts its chances for passage, as several delegations (including ours) warned earlier.

We think that trying to protect people from "civil" nuclear accidents is better than nothing and we were thinking that mandating inspections for "military" nuclear facilities will decrease the credibility of this body towards lany of its members.

We feel that including language against nuclear weapons in the document, and then refusing to inspect military facilities, does quite a bit of damage to the credibility of this resolution. That would have been a more pertinent concern.

Furthermore you can notice that clause -3- and -4-, about plan and alerts in case of accident at UNNAIS level 4 or above along with -6.1-, safety recommendations apply to both civil and military facilities.

Including those clauses is great if an accident happens, but what about preventing the accident? Merely making "recommendations" for military facilities, and ignoring them if they choose to disregard your recommendations, accomplishes nothing. Sorry, we're still opposed.

- Jinella Agaranth, Acting Ambassador

In a proposal which could have properly restricted itself to promoting the safety of citizens from nuclear accidents, the author insisted on slipping in a disarmament provision. Nations are urged to reduce their nuclear armaments to levels necessary for deterrence. Note that the term is deterrence, not defense. This places the NSUN on record as believing that deterrence is the only valid purpose for nuclear weapons. We cannot accept this. We believe, as is provided in NSUNR #109, "Nuclear Armaments", that nations should be "allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations". Deterrence is but one aspect of defense. The ability to respond effectively to attack is an equally valid requirement.

This proposal is about “responsibility” and in particular about limitation to a deterrence force and safety/security/surety. We had the option to join both two parts into a single proposal or to write two proposals. Passing two resolutions is a long process and already several really good passed resolutions deal with this “nuclear” topic (and another one about test may come), this is why we took to single option.

Yes, we really think that deterrence is the only valid purpose for nuclear weapons.
Unlike other weapons, nuclear ones have something special: they threaten directly, totally and instantly the very existence, or the interest in existence of a nation leader(s) (or the people which have the nuclear power decision making).

This is a huge difference, and no other weapons can approach this level of threat to them (to my knowledge, if some other mass-destructive ones can do the same thing then I will of course also agree to limit them to deterrence only).

This is also why nuclear weapons are so “deterrent”, and as nuclear weapons have the ability to destroy the whole humanity (or I should say sapienity) more easily than any other weapons, we think it’s really important to try to limit them to the maximum we can while keeping a pragmatic approach that is deterrence.

And what has this to do with regulating the safety of civil nuclear facilities? Absolutely nothing. Which is why we deemed the first clause entirely inappropriate, irrelevant and bordering on category violation, and which is why we continue to oppose this legislation. We remain unconvinced.

No, it really isn't. It's a step towards tripping up further steps in this direction.



No, it really doesn't. For example, with undesirable weapons systems, you ban them outright. You don't piecemeal it. We're not looking for a solution to every problem. Some of us just want a proposal that actually does what it purports to do.



No, we can't. Should this pass and we wish to develop further legislation in the matter, we would need to repeal this bill to make room for the new proposal. All this would do is add an unnecessary step to proper legislation.



I never really understood the mentality that would prefer an inherently flawed law on the books over no law at all. I still don't.



I, for one, will not be changing my vote. I'd strongly encourage others to firmly stand against this proposal, but most of the voters here have already decided upon their stances and aren't easily moved from them.

I do not mean to rebut your positions, however, one can not take what I have said previously, make your own interpretation, and then create spin in order to suit your own position. This is not an "inherently flawed law" and, contrary to your belief, it IS a step in the proper direction. I understand your position on the law not having all of the aspects that everyone would like, but let me put it into perspective for you: You buy a $25,000 car. Now you can't pay for the entire total of the car at the moment, but you can pay for it over time. The only setback is that you have to pay interest. By the time you pay off the car, you have to pay a few thousand dollars in interest.
In order for you to buy that car, you have to take an extra step in order to achieve that goal. This legislation is just like that; you have to go that extra step, but it is worth it; it is worth passing this legislation in order to provide at least SOME safety measures for the UN countries. If this legislation does not pass, I embrace and look forward to the idea that you should write the legislation to your specifications. Until then, I will support this legislation for its merits and for the prospect of nuclear safety among the UN Nations.

I am against this pathetic piece of complete and utter disdainful garbage. For 1 thing the entire program invites our citizens to stroll in and have a look at our reports unless this will threaten national law. Letting random people into nuclear power houses without authorization is asking for terrorism.
May we respecfully suggest that given such a case the government of Soniopia keep its reports somewhere other than in a nuclear facility? Perhaps a public library would be less controversial?

What I was saying is that this document contains no mandate to make any action at all once there has been a disaster of some sort. The government would be free and clear to lockdown the area and ignore the whole situation after notifying the public.
Which may, of course, be the correct course of action in a particular case.

I am against this pathetic piece of complete and utter disdainful garbage. <reasons>

Regardless of the delegate's reasons for rejecting the proposal, I am against his description of it. The L&E delegates took this to a number of drafting sessions and adopted changes that they felt would make their intent clearer. As you can see from the remarks of Ambassador Agaranth and Prime Minister von Aschenbach, they chose not to include some of the suggested alterations, but I don't think that qualifies as showing disdain, let alone "utter" disdain.

Nor can I actually see any pathos in the attempt, and, given the amount of serious debate it has engendered, I think it unfair to dismiss the result as garbage.
_______________

Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille.

I'm all for it. I think everyone should.:) :D:p

This proposal is about “responsibility” and in particular about limitation to a deterrence force and safety/security/surety. We had the option to join both two parts into a single proposal or to write two proposals. Passing two resolutions is a long process and already several really good passed resolutions deal with this “nuclear” topic (and another one about test may come), this is why we took to single option.
This proposal is about regulation and restriction, not responsibility. All large explosives can have significant environmental impacts, even conventional and kinetic weapons.

Yes, we really think that deterrence is the only valid purpose for nuclear weapons.
You're entitled to your opinion but the fact is that they have a very practical purpose in war, that purpose being to eliminate large, concentrated ground-, sea-, air-, or space-based enemy forces quickly and efficiently.

Unlike other weapons, nuclear ones have something special: they threaten directly, totally and instantly the very existence, or the interest in existence of a nation leader(s) (or the people which have the nuclear power decision making).
And a gun can't be just as effective at killing a nations leaders?

This is a huge difference, and no other weapons can approach this level of threat to them (to my knowledge, if some other mass-destructive ones can do the same thing then I will of course also agree to limit them to deterrence only).
Think again. Conventional chemical explosives with yeilds in the kiloton range are possible. Hazardous chemical weapons can eliminate whole populations while leaving equipment and structures intact. Bacterial, viral and assorted weaponized parasites can kill millions while being spread by the infected. Kinetic weapons simply dropped from orbit or relativistic weapons can impact with forces in the megaton range. Relativistic weapons directed at a target world could blow hole in the crust as wide as North America. I could go on and on with ever increasing destructive yeilds but I think I'll let those sink in.

This is also why nuclear weapons are so “deterrent”, and as nuclear weapons have the ability to destroy the whole humanity (or I should say sapienity) more easily than any other weapons, we think it’s really important to try to limit them to the maximum we can while keeping a pragmatic approach that is deterrence.
See above.

Ignorance breeds fear. In this case, the ignorance of a few has made them afraid of nuclear power and it's various applications and has driven them to attempt to restrict it. It won't be long before someone tries to draft a resolution to do away with nuclear weapons and power completely if it hasn't already.

What it is suggesting is that nations reduce their nuclear arsenals, but many or in fact most nations want nuclear equality or no nuclear weapons at all, however the nations with the most weapons will refuse nuclear equality or getting rid of nuclear weapons.

So the effect will be that nations will completly ignore it and some will abide by it and in the end it will collapse and fail so if passed it should be repealed.

Although it has positives the resolution should be either split into parts and worked on or completly re-written. Plus I prefer the nuclear button at my governments fingertips.

The world community should be able to have control over its nuclear weapons if their nation is rational and intellegent and mine is exactly that.

If you are going to work towards reducing numbers of nuclear weapons pass a "Nuclear weapons equality" resolution then pressure can be put on the nations that do not comply, but then again nations will still not comply.

The only solution to reducing nuclear weapons is a true world government, which most or the majority of nations do not want because of soverignty issues.

As power plants can be very different from a nation to another, it seemed to us that it could be difficult to the NERC to “mandates” safety practice “in general”, it’s why -6.1- is only “strong safety recommendations”.
But when an inspection is done and one-to-one hands-in-hands work is made between the NERC and a nuclear power, then specific requirements can be made, and we really think that it can be then useful that these improvements be required while respecting the text and the aim of this proposal.

I hope this is an answer your actual comments, if I didn’t correctly understand it please let me know.

We appreciate the representative of Love and esterel's reply. It is a perfect answer to our comments. It confirms that our interpretation of clause 6.3 is, indeed, correct: that it gives the NERC unfettered license to force-feed surety requirements on our nuclear power program.

Of course, this is a group of nuclear power experts basing their requirements solely on the results of their inspection of the surety aspects of the program. There is nothing to suggest that they would consider the economic or environmental impact of these requirements, yet our nation would be forced to comply. And that we consider completely unacceptable.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Yes, we really think that deterrence is the only valid purpose for nuclear weapons.
Unlike other weapons, nuclear ones have something special: they threaten directly, totally and instantly the very existence, or the interest in existence of a nation leader(s) (or the people which have the nuclear power decision making).

This is a huge difference, and no other weapons can approach this level of threat to them (to my knowledge, if some other mass-destructive ones can do the same thing then I will of course also agree to limit them to deterrence only).

This is also why nuclear weapons are so “deterrent”, and as nuclear weapons have the ability to destroy the whole humanity (or I should say sapienity) more easily than any other weapons, we think it’s really important to try to limit them to the maximum we can while keeping a pragmatic approach that is deterrence.

Meaning no disrespect to the representative of Love and esterel, but this shows a complete lack of any understanding of the tactical and strategic employment of nuclear weapons.

To say that the only legitimate use of nuclear weapons is deterrence is absurd. If that was the case, then many nations have wasted billions of dollars on development and production of tactical nuclear weapons, which have considerable battlefield utility, but little or no deterrent value.

Large-yield (strategic) nuclear weapons do indeed have substantial deterrent value. But nuclear weapons also have military application far beyond that. To have the NSUN go on record as supporting a view that denies this reality is totally unacceptable to us. We will not be a party to urging that members deny themselves these means of defending their nations and their people.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

The representative of Yelda is quite well aware that, in another venue, we made a number of suggestions for changes to the surety provisions of the draft, most of which were adopted. We also argued strongly against inclusion of the "deterrent" clauses. We were told by the author, both publicly and privately, that those clauses were "off the table" and not open to further discussion. At that point, we determined that we would not support the proposal and discontinued our participation in its drafting. Frankly, we felt we'd done enough.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was referring to your objection to the inspections in Article -6.3-, not your objections to the "deterrent" clauses. I was well aware of those.

If you stated your objections to -6.3- in another venue, I must have missed it and I apologize.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

OOC: You can. You just have to move to Chicago. You can vote as many times as you like there. ;)Only if you're dead.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was referring to your objection to the inspections in Article -6.3-, not your objections to the "deterrent" clauses. I was well aware of those.

If you stated your objections to -6.3- in another venue, I must have missed it and I apologize.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

No, we didn't state our objections to 6.3 in another venue. We spent a lot of time and effort trying to help the author with the surety clauses. We would have mentioned the requirements business sooner or later (unless we overlooked it). But when he adamantly refused to remove the business about deterrence, we decided we couldn't buy the resolution at all. So we stopped making suggestions. Not a whole lot of sense throwing more effort down the drain when you're going to try to keep the thing from passing anyway, is there?

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

We would have mentioned the requirements business sooner or later (unless we overlooked it). But when he adamantly refused to remove the business about deterrence, we decided we couldn't buy the resolution at all. So we stopped making suggestions.
Thank you. I'm glad we could clear up the misunderstanding.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

And we'd also point out that it makes little difference how you or we interpret this. We hold that passage of this resolution will give unfettered license to the NERC to dictate our nations' nuclear surety programs, no matter how an individual nation may read the clause.
OOC: You and I approach how we roleplay our nations and their relationship to the UN a little differently. To me, "Compliance is mandatory" is OK from a Gameplay perspective. However, from a roleplay perspective it really doesn't work.

There is no UN High Court to interpret the resolutions. I've always reasoned that when disputes arise involving the interpretation of UN law, those disputes are settled in the national courts. This is why I've never raised any objection to Kenny's Creative Solutions Agency. When he says "Creative Solutions Agency", I hear "Kennyite Judiciary" and assume that it's doing the same thing the Yeldan judiciary does when disputes arise involving UN law. I can't force you to accept that of course, it's just the way I play the game.

Pretty close vote, so far:

Votes For: 2,328
Votes Against: 2,390

The Nation of Blue Dinosaurs supports this bill. Nuclear power has the potential for great damage, therefore great care needs to be taken when dealing with it.

Charles "Spike" Stegos, Ambassador from Blue Dinosaurs

The Nation of Ritico has weighed in more than a few times on this issue, and other members of the government have been wiring telegrams to other powers, urging them to oppose this bill. Those of you that have watched the debate have seen mock amendments proposed parodying this resolution. While some thought that was ignorant, others realized that it put emphasis on the shameless area this resolution covers.

I checked the United Nations tally this morning and saw that reason had begun defeating illogical fear on the floor. I urge members to continue voting AGAINST this resolution and for members to continue sending diplomatic messages urging their allies and neighbors to do the same. I am not opposed to nuclear safety, and the Nation of Ritico along with the Conservative Republics would be more than happy to draft a replacement piece of legislation should this one fail, which it should. Nuclear energy can be safe AND available without negatively impacting the environment OR the uranium industry. We'll work on a new compromise. Thank you for the continued opposition to this resolution, and God Bless.

The Democratic Republic of Ritico
Member: Conservative Republics

We of the people's republic of Pericord will vote FOR the motion,
simply as it is a movement towards nuclear disrmament - albeit a witless one.

To conceive Nuclear weapons as merely a deterrent is naiive in the utmost.

The lack of mandatory training and educational requirements within this proposal causes us deep concern.

We, who have had deep experience in the health and safety arena would like to stress upon our fellow nations that it is simply not feasible nor wise to rely upon self-regulation.

Severe penalties for violation of regulations and stringent ongoing inspection are the only tenable ways of ensuring health and safety standards are maintained.

for some insane reason , workers with nuclear materials disregard any danger from the materials themselves and this leads to neglect and laxity....

instill fear and terror with the most severe of penalties - and you are frequently more likely to ensure compliance. People may be stupid enough to no longer fear radioactivity, but if they live their lives in fear of the authorities we are much more likely to live in a safe clean world to the end of the century...


As avid believers in game theory - we find the whole notion of a nuclear deterrent as ludicrous....

have you never heard of MAD? it means what it says!

Hirota has to oppose this legislation because of the economic impact we anticipate this will have on our Uranium mining industry.

The Federation of DEveloping NAtions supports this bill, even if we have certain reservations. We believe that nuclear power can help economic growth for the nations in our Federation, but we are against the occurence of Nuclear weapons at all. But since a total ban will not happen soon, we support this bill in a attempt to get this arms race under controll


The Ambasador
Federation of Developing NAtions

Hirota has to oppose this legislation because of the economic impact we anticipate this will have on our Uranium mining industry.

Ambassador Zyryanov put the four year-old Michael down on the desk (where he promptly began to play with the microphone again), and said:

"We call upon the representative of Hirota to examine this proposal carefully, and to weigh his sense of priorities. There are issues of far more importance than the growth of uranium mining industries.

We would also like to know what, exactly, leads the honourable representative to believe that those industries would suffer adverse economic effects."

We believe that Resolution #151, "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act", sufficiently reduces the accumulation of nuclear weapon stockpiles without the need for additional legislation in this area. Certainly a disarmament clause should not be slipped into a bill dealing with nuclear safety, it should be addressed in its own right with a full debate on the issue.

As for the rest proposal, which has noble aims, we are deeply concerned that blanket authority is granted to an unaccountable agency. We strongly believe that the pressure for greater safety standards in the nuclear industry should come from the local communities situated near power plants acting through the political process, rather than from the members of the United Nations who are unlikely to suffer the greatest impact of a nuclear catastrophe.

Leg-ends votes AGAINST this proposal and urges other nations to do likewise.

Intangelon and Greater Seattle vote AGAINST this resolution.

We do so on many of the same grounds that have been mentioned previously in this assembly.

Articles -C-, -D- and -1- violate the Intangible legislative rule of single-subject legislation, as well as completely misrepresent the entire body of nuclear weapons as strategic only, discounting the very non-deterrent function of tactical nuclear weaponry both on the ground and in space.

The provision exempting military nuclear facilities from NERC inspections is at odds with the plea for nuclear disarmament.

We approve of the general concept of surety for nuclear reactors, but would have liked to see implemented some kind of documented certification for nuclear technicians which would lend a kind of NERC "seal of approval" or surety to any UN nation's civil reactor. This certification would extend not only to NERC personnel, but as a template for any reactor crew wishing to be so certified, and therefore in compliance.

Documentation is also our issue with the Accident Scale proposition. Merely pointing out what Level 1 is and what Level 7 is without delineating those and the remaining levels within the body of the text leaves the levels open to interpretation. If the drafter found the time to post an Internet link with the model for such a scale outside of the resolution (a model which included a Level 0 event not mentioned in the resolution), why not include your notion of Level 4 (and the rest) in the resolution itself? Perhaps that would be seen as overkill, but if you mention a hard line for public notification is "Level 4", shouldn't a Level 4 definition be included in the resolution along with the rest of the Levels?

I applaud the delegation from Love and esterel for their work on this legislation -- it's a good first effort -- but we cannot support it and urge our colleagues here in the Assembly to vote against it.

Benjamin "Benji" Royce
Intangible UN Minister

Ben begins to sit in his delegate's chair and is grappled by his pages. The bandages over his eyes (which do not conceal the extreme edges of the scratch marks from last weeks "incident") have affected his sense of direction -- Ben finished his speech facing 90 degrees to the right of his podium. As his pages turn him back around, Ben can be heard muttering "damned Hasselhoff" before finally finding his seat.

"We call upon the representative of Hirota to examine this proposal carefully, and to weigh his sense of priorities. There are issues of far more importance than the growth of uranium mining industries.Absolutely, and I'm normally one of the first to agree. However, Hirota relies on Uranium mining and it's export of Uranium to trading partners for economic prosperity.We would also like to know what, exactly, leads the honourable representative to believe that those industries would suffer adverse economic effects."On one level, quite simply the category. It is after all "A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry."

On another level, our cars are nuclear powered. Like we have said for a very (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8625848&postcount=3) long (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:LbilzT3TcasJ:forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php%3Ft%3D397276%26page%3D142+nuclear+powered+cars+hirota+nationstates&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=3) time. Will every car have to be inspected as well?

We of the people's republic of Pericord will vote FOR the motion,
simply as it is a movement towards nuclear disrmament - albeit a witless one.


You're going to vote FOR a "witless" resolution?! You're going to vote FOR it because you think it's going to put us on some slippery slope to nuclear disarmament?!

About all we can say is... oh, my!

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

This resolution is lengthy, unfocused, and anti-industry. It covers a variety of issues, from nuclear weapons to environmental regulations, and for that reason, I will be voting against the resolution. Why should the United Nations step in and regulate energy that is more properly regulated by individual nations? We all understand the dangers of uranium and nuclear weapons, but how about looking into regulation that strengthens international security instead of trying to destroy a strong and prosperous industry? Vote this down.

The Democratic Republic of Ritico
Member: Conservative Republics

This post by Ritico is a great summary of this issue. This Resolution reads like it was written by "Corkey from TV" with severe ADD. It is all over the place, but not defined enough on any of the issues. I am all for the protection of the environment, but you must weigh the "advantages vs disadvantages" compared to fossil fuels.

1) Nuclear power is a clean energy source. To make both sides of the argument happy, I think we would only need to make and enforce more strict defined rules as to the mining of Uranium. Uranium mining does not have to be done in such a way that is so environmentally hazardous. Just say no to Strip Mining.

2) The only by product from nuclear energy is steam. Contamination or leakage of radiation from Nuclear Plants is fractional in comparison but the disasters and risks that are present while mining, and refining fossil fuels is very high.. Would you rather imagine a complete melt down of a Nuclear plant (something that can be counted on a single hand) Or the actual death rates and injuries in Fossil Fuel Mining and Refining.

3) Compared to the other clean energy sources nuclear is also cheap; therefore good on the economy and for the citizens of that nation. Wind, solar, and hydraulic energy sources are very expensive and just not technically advanced enough as of yet. So then should we not "as civil nations", fund the research and development of these newer and better resources? The whole world's air and sea are being polluted by refining and burning of Fossil Fuels at an alarming rate. If we keep on this same track that we have been on since the 1800 it will become a dead issue because there will be no world left to argue over!


As it stands I do not know how this issue ever made it through the Queue, or the editing from admin..

And for a really good detailed summary of this issue look no further then:

Kivisto
Superior Gamer
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In ur couch, stealing your change
Posts: 822
Posted Jan. 30, 2007

On another level, our cars are nuclear powered. Will every car have to be inspected as well?

Mandatory inspections apply only to "all civil nuclear reactors, their facilities and the disposal and transportation of their related waste".

Do Hirotan cars qualify?


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

-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);

MadBadgerStan disagrees with the levels indicated. More levels should be specified and MadBadgerStan believes that #7 (breakdown of a reactor with widespread contamination) Is much lower incident than a complete reactor meltdown or heven forbid an accidental discharge of a nuclear weapon.

MadBadgerStan also disagrees with the proposal as we see nuclear weapons as a valid deterrent verses a country with a much larger army. Hell the coffee chain FarBucks is just a cover for our Silos and with almost 20,000 stores nationwide, thats more than a few nukes.

We have around 75,000 people currently employed in the Uranium mining, Refining and Export business. Any cuts here would put a tremendous amount of people out of their jobs.

Voted: Against

This post by Ritico is a great summary of this issue. This Resolution reads like it was written by "Corkey from TV" with severe ADD. It is all over the place, but not defined enough on any of the issues. I am all for the protection of the environment, but you must weigh the "advantages vs disadvantages" compared to fossil fuels.

OK, it is good to compare.


1) Nuclear power is a clean energy source. To make both sides of the argument happy, I think we would only need to make and enforce more strict defined rules as to the mining of Uranium. Uranium mining does not have to be done in such a way that is so environmentally hazardous. Just say no to Strip Mining.


Clean energy source? Are you forgetting something? Like radiation?

Yes, the mining can be done cleaner then strip mining. But it is still dangerous (the stuff is radioactive).


2) The only by product from nuclear energy is steam. Contamination or leakage of radiation from Nuclear Plants is fractional in comparison but the disasters and risks that are present while mining, and refining fossil fuels is very high.. Would you rather imagine a complete melt down of a Nuclear plant (something that can be counted on a single hand) Or the actual death rates and injuries in Fossil Fuel Mining and Refining.


And still radioative "depleated" uranium that you have to store away for a few centries.


3) Compared to the other clean energy sources nuclear is also cheap; therefore good on the economy and for the citizens of that nation. Wind, solar, and hydraulic energy sources are very expensive and just not technically advanced enough as of yet. So then should we not "as civil nations", fund the research and development of these newer and better resources? The whole world's air and sea are being polluted by refining and burning of Fossil Fuels at an alarming rate. If we keep on this same track that we have been on since the 1800 it will become a dead issue because there will be no world left to argue over!


Agreement on this one.


As it stands I do not know how this issue ever made it through the Queue, or the editing from admin..


Agreed. This is a half baked resolution that really needs to go back in the oven.

*hits the against button*

I don't know how you fleashies expect to last with such silly resolutions.

Lore the second

I voted for. It's a blow to the industrial sector, but it should work out as newer resources are discovered. We do not need exceedingly large amounts of Warheads, as they with the addition of nuclear reactors are VERY expensive to maintain.

Your money could be better spent.

I voted for as well. My country believes in conventional warfare to settle disputes. We regard nuclear warfare as cowardly and dishonourable...

*waits for someone to land a few nukes on Tymbuqtwo* :eek:

Sen Sulla looks at his fellow ambasadors with a look of disdain and disgust. A staffer walks up to the Senator with a smallish box in his hands.
"Ah! Baskim my boy, put it right there.", Sulla says as he points to a spot on the desk. after the functionary leaves, the senator addresses the snakep...err...assembly.

"The Palentine wishes to state that we oppose this piece of fuzzy feeling, tree hugging, cretin fodder legislation. we have prided ourselves in voting against almost every enviromental resolution that has ccome to vote, but this abomination has surpassed all abominations that have come before. We most strongly condem the use of this piece of legislation to support nuclear disarmament. The Palentine would have far more respect for this legislation and the author if they would have openly submitted a nuclear ban or freeze as a disarmament treaty, insted of using the enviroment as a subterfuge to pass muster from the chowderheads and cretins that cannot bother to read more than the title and catagory before casting a vote. This outrage cannot stans, and I urge all to vote against this legislation, until the author gets the guts to submit a disarmaent treaty that can stand on its own merits and not hide behind alterior motives. Furthermore the Palentine wishes to show this assembly what we think of the legislation and its author."

At this point Sen. Sulla opens the box on his desk and removes a coconut creme pie. He stands up, and with a mighty throw, heaves it at the representative from L&E.

This is a statement from General Apollo Wall, President, The Federation Of Militant Territories.

Good evening, distinguished delegates of the United Nations.

My people and I have previously spoken on this issue, but we feel it is necessary to address a few specific provisions of the resolution before the debate closes.

I have spoken with several of my advisors for their input and expertise on the myriad issues addressed by this resolution.

In reference to provision 6.1 of the resolution, which allows NERC to inspect and regulate state nuclear programs, our nuclear facilities were built with technology secured from a variety of sources, as well as with the innovation of Federation scientists. Thus, we make use of hybrid technologies that are extraordinarily unique— it would be nearly impossible for NERC scientists to establish and enforce uniform standards, since such standards might not even be applicable to our facilities.

Furthermore—due to the unique nature of our nuclear technology—the machinery, processes, materials, and equipment used by the Federation are top secret, known only to myself and a few key members of my government. To allow an outside body to obtain these vital state secrets would potentially endanger our entire energy infrastructure. Consequently, we feel provision 7 of the resolution— which allows NERC to obtain and use information regarding any/all nuclear facilities— is an unacceptable breach of our national sovereignty. We object to the dissemination of vital national security secrets to the United Nations, and we refuse to allow such data to be revealed for any purpose, even those within the limits set in the resolution.

Finally, while we in The Federation understand the drive towards nuclear disarmament, we maintain that it is within our sovereign right to pursue nuclear weapons. As long as there are still nations in the world who posses nuclear weaponry, we must preserve our right and our ability to pursue nuclear arms, if necessary. Otherwise, should a nuclear nation set its sights upon our Federation, we would be utterly defenseless; we find such a situation unacceptable.

Thus, my people and I urge all of our brother and sister nations to oppose this flawed, invasive resolution.

At this point Sen. Sulla opens the box on his desk and removes a coconut creme pie. He stands up, and with a mighty throw, heaves it at the representative from L&E.

We believe the representative will find that Inter-Representative Ballistic Pies are only meant to exist as a deterrent, not for tactical usage beyond that purpose.

Your money could be better spent.
With all due respect to the ambassador we wish to remind her/him that it is our money therefore we do with it as we wish.

There is no singular superior morality therefore we would appreciate it greatly if the representative could refrain from seeking to impose uniform standards of national budget priorities.

As for Ithania’s position on the issue at hand; we’re firmly against for reasons previously noted by others. Further, we see this resolution’s text as encapsulating what occurs when the necessary flexibility between compromise and conviction is not maintained.

Whilst we applaud the intent of the resolution’s seeming desire to prevent member nations from ever experiencing the adverse affects of fall-out from internal or external disasters we also believe that the attempt to introduce a statement concerning nuclear arms via subterfuge is unacceptable and irresponsible.

We do dearly hope to see a re-drafted version of this be passed in the future, after critical amendments have been made that ensure a good principle is refined until its becomes good law.

(OOC: I’m off to watch Gone with the Wind again… I just wish I’d got chance to say “we don’t give a damn” somewhere. :( but tomorrow is another day.)

Delivered moments ago on the floor of the United Nations by the Enririan Ambassador -

Mr. Secretary, committee members, and fellow nations of the United Nations, the Democratic Republic of Enrir will join Ritico and other members of the Conservative Republics Region, and vote AGAINST the resolution.

I voted for as well. My country believes in conventional warfare to settle disputes. We regard nuclear warfare as cowardly and dishonourable...

*waits for someone to land a few nukes on Tymbuqtwo* :eek:

As a nation that agrees with you on the subject of nuclear warfare, we're pleased to hear someone else express that rare opinion. However, this resolution won't really affect nuclear warfare at all, outside of its hectoring statements about nuclear arsenals that are totally unrelated to the subject the resolution covers.

Good show though, welcome to the UN. Have a bottle of fine Altanari wine on us.

- Jinella Agaranth, Acting Ambassador

I do not mean to rebut your positions,

Well, yes you do, but let's hear what you have to say anyways.

however, one can not take what I have said previously, make your own interpretation, and then create spin in order to suit your own position.

Yes, I can. In fact, I did. I will interpret things as I see fit and there ain't a darn thing you can do about it. Spin is one of my favourite political games. I'm not the master at it that others are, but they are sufficient, I believe.

This is not an "inherently flawed law"

Yes, it is.

and, contrary to your belief, it IS a step in the proper direction.

Only if you wish to block proper legislation in this area.

I understand your position on the law not having all of the aspects that everyone would like,

Apparently not. It is not that there are aspects we would like to see that are lacking. It is that the lacking aspects are purported to be there by the resolution itself. It fails to accomplish what it sets out to do.

*snipped car analogy* This legislation is just like that; you have to go that extra step, but it is worth it; it is worth passing this legislation in order to provide at least SOME safety measures for the UN countries.

I get the analogy, and it's almost apt. The problem is that this step is completely unnecessary, and blocks further legislation in this area. This isn't a down payment on a car. It's signing a contract that you won't make any more car payments. It's buying a license to walk that you will later need to sell before you can buy the car that you actually want. It's paying the dealer for the priviledge of looking at the car instead of just saving up enough to buy the car outright.

If this legislation does not pass, I embrace and look forward to the idea that you should write the legislation to your specifications.

I do not feel the need to impose the standards of Kivisto upon the entire populace of the UN. It is unnecessary to require that everyone meet our rather exacting safety requirements for such things. Lesser precautions suffice for many.

Until then, I will support this legislation for its merits and for the prospect of nuclear safety among the UN Nations.

Despite the fact that you are completely unable to refute my demonstrations that this will completely fail to improve standards within any nation that doesn't want to bother with them.



Originally Posted by Kivisto
What I was saying is that this document contains no mandate to make any action at all once there has been a disaster of some sort. The government would be free and clear to lockdown the area and ignore the whole situation after notifying the public.

Which may, of course, be the correct course of action in a particular case.

In a particular case, sure. But nations would be free to do this with any case.

... we are against the occurence of Nuclear weapons at all. But since a total ban will not happen soon, we support this bill in a attempt to get this arms race under controll


I voted for as well. My country believes in conventional warfare to settle disputes. We regard nuclear warfare as cowardly and dishonourable...


You do realize, of course, that, since this resolution still states that nations can have a deterrence supply of nuclear weaponry, if you ever wish to see a full on ban of nuclear weapons, you would have to repeal this along with the other resolutions regarding them?

I realize that the mention is preambulatory and not binding as law, but it would be documented sentiment of the UN that would run contrary to any proposed ban on nuclear weapons.

EDIT: added for clarity

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

[emphasis mine]

It's right there. We have a need for a nuclear deterrence arsenal. If this passes, I will thank the L&E delegation for that reaffirmation of my nation's right to bear nukes.

The Republic of Evikastan is troubled by this infringement on national soverignty:

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,

This must be removed for it to be a solid and complete document.

What I was saying is that this document contains no mandate to make any action at all once there has been a disaster of some sort. The government would be free and clear to lockdown the area and ignore the whole situation after notifying the public.
Which may, of course, be the correct course of action in a particular case.
In a particular case, sure. But nations would be free to do this with any case.
Unless you can determine in advance which cases are which, such flexibility must exist. To order otherwise is to display a level of hubris that is all but sending an engraved invitation to Nemesis to drop round for a vacation.

Clean energy source? Are you forgetting something? Like radiation?
Are you forgetting something? Like sheilding? Or that nuclear fission produces power by the transfer of heat from charged particles emitted by unstable nuclei to a coolant medium (water) which is used to drive a turbine for conversion of kinetic energy to electric?

Yes, the mining can be done cleaner then strip mining. But it is still dangerous (the stuff is radioactive).
Have you ever heard of robots? Or sheilding?

And still radioative "depleated" uranium that you have to store away for a few centries.
95% of spent fuel can be recovered. Depleted Uranium (U238) is minimally radioactive, an alpha emitter with a mean lifetime of 1.41 × 10^17 seconds or about 4,471,080,670 years, so 1 mole of uranium-238 emits 3 × 106 alpha particles per second. Hardly dangerous.

Unless you can determine in advance which cases are which, such flexibility must exist. To order otherwise is to display a level of hubris that is all but sending an engraved invitation to Nemesis to drop round for a vacation.

I don't mean that the UN need mandate specific actions, but that there should be some requirement for action of some sort. There isn't. Were this to state that nations must make some efforts towards containment, treatment, cleanup, or anything, it would be a more complete effort. As is, it fails at actually accomplishing its purported goal of increasing safety and improving the situation for either the populace or the environment.

With all due respect to the ambassador we wish to remind her/him that it is our money therefore we do with it as we wish.

There is no singular superior morality therefore we would appreciate it greatly if the representative could refrain from seeking to impose uniform standards of national budget priorities.

You must certainly understand the dangers of stockpiling nuclear weapons or having large stores of uranium, especially if you plan on building an industry out of it. Things go wrong, and most importantly it is not impossible for your precious uranium to go missing because of a few sloppy employees.

It is not my business what you do with it; It is most certainly my business when all that work goes down the drain and you end up with a missing warhead or fuel rod. In fact, I think that is everyone's business.

Having a large number of weapons is hard to keep track of. Having too many fuel rods, especially those which are spent, is such a burden, I must admit I am not ready to put forward so much money to stockpile them until they have been fully depleted without knowing a risk of them going missing.

You do, however, strike a point. This is a democratic union, and you have the right to do as you wish and I am sure you voted accurately for it. It is my only wish you consider all the ramifications and not let blind pride lead other nations into danger.

:headbang: :headbang:

The last thing my nation needs is that nuclear responsibility bill. Half my economy is uranium mining, as is a multitude of other nations I have seen. I'm striving for a world benchmark economy, take away uranium and what do I have? It won't affect anyone else if I have a "nuclear accident". I'm in a small secluded nation. Anyway, I'm done raving.


Vote against Nuclear Responsibility!

If I could vote based on my own opinion, I would support this bill as I'm trying to knock uranium mining off my top 3 industries. However, I really wished the author would have listened to popular opinion and removed clause 1- I think this will prove to be the dealbreaker that causes this proposal to fail.

Mandatory inspections apply only to "all civil nuclear reactors, their facilities and the disposal and transportation of their related waste".

Do Hirotan cars qualify?I'd have thought they were. They do after all use a nuclear reaction, they are civilian in use and so on.

Heck, if inspectors have to spend their time checking out every car out there in the roads of Hirota, they won't have much time doing anything else.

If I could vote based on my own opinion, I would support this bill as I'm trying to knock uranium mining off my top 3 industries. However, I really wished the author would have listened to popular opinion and removed clause 1- I think this will prove to be the dealbreaker that causes this proposal to fail.

OOC: On the flip side, it's also inspiring geniuses like these two to vote for it. :rolleyes:

I voted for. It's a blow to the industrial sector, but it should work out as newer resources are discovered. We do not need exceedingly large amounts of Warheads, as they with the addition of nuclear reactors are VERY expensive to maintain.

Your money could be better spent.

I voted for as well. My country believes in conventional warfare to settle disputes. We regard nuclear warfare as cowardly and dishonourable...

*waits for someone to land a few nukes on Tymbuqtwo* :eek:

Back IC:

We'll give Tymbuqtwo a choice: obliteration by nukes or by our Death Star (http://z8.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Paradise/index.php?showtopic=19)?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Back IC:

We'll give Tymbuqtwo a choice: obliteration by nukes or by our Death Star (http://z8.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Paradise/index.php?showtopic=19)?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN


Uh...we had enough sense to build some nice deep nuclear bunkers, knowing many other countries have nukes. We also hired a mercenary X-wing squadron to deal with your Death Star (and a regiment of Ewoks to take out the shield generator) :p

This is too vague and sets up a slippery slope to nuclear weapons ban. We Blue Ones don't use nukse as of now, but we want to maintain the right to develop them. This proposal encroaches on our soverignty. The world doesn't need more bans from the U.N. Ustioria retracts its vote.

Uh...we had enough sense to build some nice deep nuclear bunkers, knowing many other countries have nukes. We also hired a mercenary X-wing squadron to deal with your Death Star (and a regiment of Ewoks to take out the shield generator) :p

My boy, Cluichstani stormtroopers make those pissant other stormtroopers look like grandma baking a pie. And they can actually hit a target, too. It was nice knowing you.

You must certainly understand the dangers of stockpiling nuclear weapons or having large stores of uranium, especially if you plan on building an industry out of it. Things go wrong, and most importantly it is not impossible for your precious uranium to go missing because of a few sloppy employees.

If they're sloppy, then they don't get to work in the nuclear power plants. Simple as that. Of course there's a danger with nuclear weapons- there's a danger with everything that's dangerous! That's why cars crash and oil burns and bullets explode and make things go hurty-hurty.

It is not my business what you do with it; It is most certainly my business when all that work goes down the drain and you end up with a missing warhead or fuel rod. In fact, I think that is everyone's business.

Oh, boo hoo. There's a very simple was to deal with that, and it's not by mandating inspections and unrealistic ratings systems. If you're afraid of getting your ass nuked, don't piss any countries off. It worked for MechaSwitzerland.*

Having a large number of weapons is hard to keep track of. Having too many fuel rods, especially those which are spent, is such a burden, I must admit I am not ready to put forward so much money to stockpile them until they have been fully depleted without knowing a risk of them going missing.

Okay, let me get this straight- you'd be willing to stockpile them, but not spend money making sure they don't get stolen? And what's more, you'll trust those disgusting little gnomes to keep track of them for you? The UN is no more competent than any national body- probably even less so, because it's entirely predicated on the majority rule.

Bad for industry, bad for us, bad for nations. Our vote remains opposed.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro Tempore

Liubenia will not support the actions of irresponsible, ignorant nations. We urge other nations to fully realize the extent of nuclear responsibility and vote in favor of this resolution. Do not be thrown off by idle threats by other countries, or begin to think stockpiling your nuclear ammunition is a defense mechanism. It only makes you a more likely target for your enemy nations.

Nuclear power is a useful source of power. We need it, but we must use it wisely in order to progress with it. If all our uranium goes into warheads, consider this: where do the people of your nation lay their loyalties, to a war monger or to a responsible problem solver?

There is no "boo hoo, 2 bad kk?". There is a fine line you cross by voting against your own responsibility.

We remain in favor in hopes this resolution is re-drafted.

See, this is why we wish the language about nuclear weapons hadn't been included. Certain other nations are now going on and on about "nuclear ammunition" (?) and "warheads", in the apparent theory that the dangers those pose are a reason to vote for this resolution.

This resolution doesn't do diddly about those, other than urging nations "to limit or reduce their nuclear arsenal". And as we know from experience, "urging" nations to limit or reduce their weapons arsenals is a lot like "urging" a really big, starving bear to limit or reduce the number of salmon it eats from the river by standing in front of said starving bear and wagging your finger at it. Good luck with that.

- Jinella Agaranth, Acting Ambassador

We remain in favor in hopes this resolution is re-drafted.

If you wish to see it redrafted, then first it must fail.

As for the rest of this:
Liubenia will not support the actions of irresponsible, ignorant nations. We urge other nations to fully realize the extent of nuclear responsibility and vote in favor of this resolution. Do not be thrown off by idle threats by other countries, or begin to think stockpiling your nuclear ammunition is a defense mechanism. It only makes you a more likely target for your enemy nations.

Nuclear power is a useful source of power. We need it, but we must use it wisely in order to progress with it. If all our uranium goes into warheads, consider this: where do the people of your nation lay their loyalties, to a war monger or to a responsible problem solver?

Let's put aside the nuclear armament stuff, shall we. This proposal does nothing to any nation's capacity to have nukes, nor does it affect any currently extant nukes that they may have. It has a cute little sentiment or two that do nothing but further prevent an all out ban on nuclear weapons from passing. If your interest is in controlling nuclear arms races across the UN, then this resolution is not the place to look. Every single mandating clause deals with reactor facilities and their peripherals, not weapons. There is nothing to be gained if your vote for this is a vote in favour of nuclear disarmament.

There is no "boo hoo, 2 bad kk?". There is a fine line you cross by voting against your own responsibility

My responsibility is to examine prospective legislation for potential flaws, loopholes, infringements, etc. This proposal contains a number of flaws, loopholes, and infringements of national rights. For me to support this would be a betrayal against my own intellect. For me to fulfill my responsibility, I must oppose on grounds that are logically, morally, and legalistically, sound.

I may imply that, but it was included in the proposal and it cannot be ignored, like some may think.

"Oh, well I don't think that should be in there, regardless how broad the nuclear industry is, so I'll focus my reasoning on only good."

We are quite content with having a nuclear energy source, but just because we do not thirst for a nuclear arsenal of epic proportions does not mean everyone else doesn't. Can you not understand that it is within the limits of the draft to have a large nuclear arsenal?

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

This particular quote says two things: For one, it urges, but does not force, a nuclear weapons disarmament, meaning you do not have to listen at all to the resolution, whatever repercussions it may incur.

Secondly, it mandates that you, as a nation, are allowed to have a SUFFICIENT DETERRENT FORCE. It does not specify how large or small it must be, only that it is sufficient. Therefore, I believe it is safe to assume that sufficiency in this manner is relative to your enemies armament, and may grow or shrink with it.

We are opposed to any form of nuclear weapons, but because of the unignorable threat of enemies we have decided to maintain a small number, quite within acceptable boundaries provided in this resolution. So, like I mentioned, Liubenia is in favor of this resolution.

There are already resolutions on the books that guarantee your right to maintain a nuclear arsenal for defence purposes. Ones that do not hide themselves within bad law.

Ritico Declares Nuclear Responsibility Resolution Dead

Ritico City (RNN)- The President of Ritico, Walker Jade, gave a speech to the people of his nation, who have been actively awaiting news since the Democratic Republic joined the United Nations. Citizens were immediately skeptical of joining the international organization but President Jade promised change and reform, including the defeat of the current resolution.

A notable Ritican pundit, Marsi Lyn, said that the success or failure of the Nuclear Responsibility amendment might determine whether or not Ritico has a future in the UN.

"President Jade has strong public support, but there are a lot of Conservative isolationists in Ritico. In a nation of 12 million, which is growing fast, it's easy to get your finger on the political pulse. If this resolution passed, I don't think the citizens of Ritico would be too happy about the United Nations application."

President's Jade speech avidly defended Ritico's application to the United Nations and the formation of a new voting bloc, the Conservative Republics. He also promised that Ritico's delegates wouldn't give up on any resolution without a fight. He made the following statement:

"Citizens of Ritico can be proud to know that with the help of other nations in the Conservative Republics, and other strong nations in the world, a UN resolution to undermine our industries and take away our right to a nuclear arsenal, has been defeated. Ritico and Conservative Republics delegates fiercely debated the issue over the last several days, and the tallies appear to show us clinching victory. This is but another example of a pointless UN power grab attempting to destroy industry and prevent nations from defending themselves with nuclear weapons. The far-reaching beaurocratic measure is going down in flames, and you can be confident that the Democratic Republic of Ritico is on a better road because of it."

The Democratic Republic of Ritico is likely to become the central state of the Conservative Republics, with Jade set to serve as Prime Minister while the Republic of Jarrellia will control the U.N. delegateship. Jade is yet to release a statement on any of the upcoming U.N. proposals.

Ritico News Network- Ritico City

this resolution has some rough points
but overall seems sound
we of France 1337 fully support regulations of
nuclear weapons and energy
thank you

After careful thought and consideration, it is our opinion that this resolution attempts to do many things, and those not particularly well. We applaud the efforts of those involved in authoring and drafting this resolution, and hope to see a more focused proposal in time.

Serph-Kaiyos, the Light
Free Lands of Krioval

Uh...we had enough sense to build some nice deep nuclear bunkers, knowing many other countries have nukes. We also hired a mercenary X-wing squadron to deal with your Death Star (and a regiment of Ewoks to take out the shield generator) :p

Hey Nadnerb, won't they be in for a surprise when they find out that you guys eliminated that little exhaust port flaw.

Anyway, on to business. As the author of UN Resolution #109 Nuclear Armaments (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110) I cannot in good conscience vote for any resolution that advocates nuclear disarmament in any way, shape or form. Therefore, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote AGAINST this resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Anyway, on to business. As the author of UN Resolution #109 Nuclear Armaments (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110) I cannot in good conscience vote for any resolution that advocates nuclear disarmament in any way, shape or form. Therefore, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote AGAINST this resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

By passing this law, you will only have to disarm to the level of your enemie's average stockpile of nuclear arms. You are not obligated to disarm completely in any way, but it is strongly urged.

Of course, if it is the principle of the thing, then Liubenia is in no way going to interfere with that freedom. We apologise if the ambassador was a little direct.

Votes For: 4,007

Votes Against: 4,691

Still could pass.

As First Minister, I have given this matter deep consideration, and the matter has of course been tabled in the Parliament of Equals

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

Yet there is no definition of "reasonable deterrent force", and no indication of who will set that "limit". My government will not allow the defence needs of this nation to be set or controlled by outside forces or governments, who cannot be guaranteed to have the best interests of my nation at heart.

I will also not, under any circumstances, allow foreign "inspectors" into my nation to "evaluate" our current status of nuclear force. Intrusions into national sovereignty are forbidden under our law.

In Parliament, this matter was voted down 93-2 in the Peoples Quorum, voted down 95-0 in our Senate...and by referendum and plebiscite to the people of this nation, was rejected by a resounding 97 percent majority.

By common accord, by the will of this nation and its people..we maintain our sovereign right as a free nation, and accordingly, say NAY to this proposal.

Signed

- Andrew K Loganholme
First Minister
Free Pacific Nations

Signed

- Keith Ryman III
Defence Minister
Free Pacific Nations

Hey Nadnerb, won't they be in for a surprise when they find out that you guys eliminated that little exhaust port flaw.


Indeed, my friend. Commander Nikrat is going to enjoy watching our TIE interceptors pick off those X-wings while they're busy looking for that non-existent exhaust port.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The government of Yamaneko will vote FOR this resolution. The reason of those who vote against (economy, deterrence, aggression, power) are the reason why there is such a proposition.

By the way, how many countries have nuclear capabilities? How many of those have a technological imperative, or a security imperative to go nuclear? I do not ask these questions for nothing; the number of countries having nuclear capabilities (fuel, aerospatial industry, capacity of transformation) determine the risk of a nuclear war. That is saying nothing about environmental considerations.

Yves Levesque
UN Ambassador to Yamaneko

This really won't affect us.

The last time someone tried send s nuclear missile into Cobdenia, it turned into 4,000 angry fraganoo tribesman armed with Ersatz Lee Enfield Rifles who attempted to storm our garrison at Lukipolto.

Luckily, we had several pith helmeted soldiers with vickers guns to sort it out. There used to it...

Yves Levesque
UN Ambassador to Yamaneko

UN Ambassador to Yamaneko? Don't you have that backwards? Or do you presume to speak for this entire body to that little mote of a nation?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Are you forgetting something? Like shielding? Or that nuclear fission produces power by the transfer of heat from charged particles emitted by unstable nuclei to a coolant medium (water) which is used to drive a turbine for conversion of kinetic energy to electric?

I haven't forgotten all that, what I remembering is past accidents at nuclear power plants in the past. While through normal running operations while the radiation is behind shields, it is a very clean. But your forgetting accidents and removal of the "spent" fuel, which is still radioactive.


Have you ever heard of robots? Or shielding?


Robots? This is a nation of Androids! And while we do have a higher tolerance to radiation then most organic beings do, it does eventually degrade our CPUs and positronic brains.


95% of spent fuel can be recovered. Depleted Uranium (U238) is minimally radioactive, an alpha emitter with a mean lifetime of 1.41 × 10^17 seconds or about 4,471,080,670 years, so 1 mole of uranium-238 emits 3 × 106 alpha particles per second. Hardly dangerous.

Yes, but the stuff is still toxic and has to be stored away from the environment. And you can't just stick it down a hole and leave it, past experience shows us that leaks will form and it will get out, it is just a question of when.

When a nuclear plant is running, it is clean barring accidents. But it does produce some of the most dangerous waste known. Hardly what I would call clean.

The government of Yamaneko will vote FOR this resolution. The reason of those who vote against (economy, deterrence, aggression, power) are the reason why there is such a proposition.

By the way, how many countries have nuclear capabilities? How many of those have a technological imperative, or a security imperative to go nuclear? I do not ask these questions for nothing; the number of countries having nuclear capabilities (fuel, aerospatial industry, capacity of transformation) determine the risk of a nuclear war. That is saying nothing about environmental considerations.

Yves Levesque
UN Ambassador to Yamaneko

To answer the representative's question.... Ausserland does not and will not have nuclear weapons. Our nuclear weaponry was demilitarized several years ago. The decision to do this wasn't based on any sort of moral philosophizing. It was done at the instigation of our senior military folks, who believed that the very substantial funds needed to produce, maintain, safeguard, and operate nuclear weapons could be better spent on conventional and advanced technology weapons.

Anyone who thinks this leaves us defenseless or open to attack should go right ahead and give it a go. We'll be happy to explain to them afterwards why the remnants of their military forces are waving those nice little white flags and their whole national infrastructure just went belly-up.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Minitary Attache

Nuclear power is clean and efficient. Nuclear accidents in the past have only occurred when the plants were not operating under normal conditions.

As for waste, it can be safely stored. And if need be it can be shot into the sun :D

John Doe-Gurnag, head of government of Gurnag states:

Each country's government should be sovereign enough to decide on their own, not being bullied around by such thing as the un-"United Nations" of whatever. It's a countries own responsibility to produce, maintain and upgrade their armament of choice, be it nuclear weapons, biological or chemical agents and substances. What if we would sign this treaty so that our scientists would need to develop better conventional weapons like long distance carpet scatter bombs and then one day the whims of the UN strike again wanting to ban our weapons of choice which we need to defend our country? So i say NO!

John Doe-Gurnag, head of government of Gurnag states:

Each country's government should be sovereign enough to decide on their own, not being bullied around by such thing as the un-"United Nations" of whatever. It's a countries own responsibility to produce, maintain and upgrade their armament of choice, be it nuclear weapons, biological or chemical agents and substances. What if we would sign this treaty so that our scientists would need to develop better conventional weapons like long distance carpet scatter bombs and then one day the whims of the UN strike again wanting to ban our weapons of choice which we need to defend our country? So i say NO!

OOC: While I'm glad you're voting against, your different font and bold typeface makes you look oh-so-smart. :rolleyes:

Each country's government should be sovereign enough to decide on their own, not being bullied around by such thing as the un-"United Nations" of whatever.

What are you doing as a voluntary member of the UN?

Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

What are you doing as a voluntary member of the UN?

Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I'd completely forgotten that I'd created a card for people like that.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/wtf7an.jpg

As a pre-emptive move, I'd like to bagsy the office of the first person who decides to take the advice of that card.

Hey Nadnerb, won't they be in for a surprise when they find out that you guys eliminated that little exhaust port flaw.

Anyway, on to business. As the author of UN Resolution #109 Nuclear Armaments (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110) I cannot in good conscience vote for any resolution that advocates nuclear disarmament in any way, shape or form. Therefore, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote AGAINST this resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

LAE agree fully with your Resolution #109, and we don't see any contradiction between this and our proposal...allowing something while trying to limit its undesirable effects.


I realize that the mention is preambulatory and not binding as law, but it would be documented sentiment of the UN that would run contrary to any proposed ban on nuclear weapons.

LAE is against any ban on nuclear weapons, as we think it's totally utopist and may be dangerous for the security of UN members, and we would like to say it's clearly stated in this proposal.

We feel that including language against nuclear weapons in the document, and then refusing to inspect military facilities, does quite a bit of damage to the credibility of this resolution. That would have been a more pertinent concern.

This document is not again nuclear weapons, it just promotes the limitation of them, and this is really different. We wrote this document trying to keep a pragmatic approach and refuse any utopia, mandating stuff when we think it was reasonably possible and urging others which are not really possible to mandate.

Including those clauses is great if an accident happens, but what about preventing the accident? Merely making "recommendations" for military facilities, and ignoring them if they choose to disregard your recommendations, accomplishes nothing. Sorry, we're still opposed.

-6.1- are strong recommendations also to military facilities, in order to prevent accidents.

Once again we regret that many members of this assembly including esteemed one argue against a mild clause, just because it seems to them that they do nothing. The NSUN don't have all the powers of a classical government, it's a reality (such as police military ...), but that do not means that it does not posses an "INFLUENCE" and "ADVESRTISING" power.

We appreciate the representative of Love and esterel's reply. It is a perfect answer to our comments. It confirms that our interpretation of clause 6.3 is, indeed, correct: that it gives the NERC unfettered license to force-feed surety requirements on our nuclear power program.

Of course, this is a group of nuclear power experts basing their requirements solely on the results of their inspection of the surety aspects of the program. There is nothing to suggest that they would consider the economic or environmental impact of these requirements, yet our nation would be forced to comply. And that we consider completely unacceptable.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Nuclear Power is almost the cheaper source of energy on earth, so I think we have to relativise the economic impact of nuclear power safety and I would like to remember the esteemed Ambassador of Ausserland about the events in Chernobyl, as it clearly happened because of a lack of safety good practices and procedures. It's why I fail to see what is so unacceptable to comply with safety procedures for civil facilities with such a potential risk.


Meaning no disrespect to the representative of Love and esterel, but this shows a complete lack of any understanding of the tactical and strategic employment of nuclear weapons.

To say that the only legitimate use of nuclear weapons is deterrence is absurd. If that was the case, then many nations have wasted billions of dollars on development and production of tactical nuclear weapons, which have considerable battlefield utility, but little or no deterrent value.

Large-yield (strategic) nuclear weapons do indeed have substantial deterrent value. But nuclear weapons also have military application far beyond that. To have the NSUN go on record as supporting a view that denies this reality is totally unacceptable to us. We will not be a party to urging that members deny themselves these means of defending their nations and their people.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

We would like to say that the difference between what you call strategic and tactical nuclear weapons are absolutely not clear and that it doesn’t change anything to deterrence.
All this proposal want on this topic is to establsih the principle of a limit at a "reasonable deterrent force".

Nuclear Power is almost the cheaper source of energy on earth, so I think we have to relativise the economic impact of nuclear power safety and I would like to remember the esteemed Ambassador of Ausserland about the events in Chernobyl, as it clearly happened because of a lack of safety good practices and procedures. It's why I fail to see what is so unacceptable to comply with safety procedures for civil facilities with such a potential risk.

We're well aware of the events in the mythical land of RL at Chernobyl. [OOC: One of my neighbors is an elderly Russian immigrant who was an engineer sent in as part of the effort to handle the disaster. We've had long discussions about it.] We have nothing against the surety provisions of this resolution. As the representative is well aware, we had a bit of a hand in writing some of them. What we object to is that, after good provisions about making recommendations and requiring proper planning for disaster, the resolution then turns 180 degrees and empowers the NERC to micromanage our surety program, with no regard to any factors other than surety. The representative obviously remains oblivious to the fact that irresponsible forced implementation of safety requirements could very well have devastating effects on both the economy and the environment of a nation. The NERC is nowhere required to consider such factors when "making requirements". It acts solely, we muct presume, on the results of its inspections.


We would like to say that the difference between what you call strategic and tactical nuclear weapons are absolutely not clear and that it doesn’t change anything to deterrence. All this proposal want on this topic is to establsih the principle of a limit at a "reasonable deterrent force".

If the representative doesn't even know the difference between strategic and tactical weapons, perhaps he should have educated himself on the issues before writing the resolution.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

We're well aware of the events in the mythical land of RL at Chernobyl. [OOC: One of my neighbors is an elderly Russian immigrant who was an engineer sent in as part of the effort to handle the disaster. We've had long discussions about it.] We have nothing against the surety provisions of this resolution. As the representative is well aware, we had a bit of a hand in writing some of them. What we object to is that, after good provisions about making recommendations and requiring proper planning for disaster, the resolution then turns 180 degrees and empowers the NERC to micromanage our surety program, with no regard to any factors other than surety. The representative obviously remains oblivious to the fact that irresponsible forced implementation of safety requirements could very well have devastating effects on both the economy and the environment of a nation. The NERC is nowhere required to consider such factors when "making requirements". It acts solely, we muct presume, on the results of its inspections.

The aim of this proposal as stated in the -E- is to reduce the risks, not 0 risk. There is nothing in this proposal about irresponsible forced implementation, as existing nuclear power technologies complying with widely accepted risk level is a cheap way of producing energy.

If the representative doesn't even know the difference between strategic and tactical weapons, perhaps he should have educated himself on the issues before writing the resolution.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

It seems to us that as we are dealing with "nuclear" strategic and tactical weapons and not weapons in general, the border between these too is really confusing. And it seems to us also that a tactical nuclear weapon may well be a part of a deterrent force, as it used to be in history.

On a sidenote we would appreciate if the estimeed Ambassador of Ausserland may tone down his repeated agressivity in his answers in this thread and others, thank you.

On a sidenote we would appreciate if the estimeed Ambassador of Ausserland may tone down his repeated agressivity in his answers in this thread and others, thank you.

Perhaps the Ambassador of Ausserland and others are aggressive in their answers because they're tired of seeing proposals stepping on national sovereignty and international security? Perhaps they're tired of environmentalists proposing resolutions such as this one that damage industry while masquerading as a nuclear protections bill? I'm just throwing it out there.

The Democratic Republic of Ritico
Member: Conservative Republics

Perhaps the Ambassador of Ausserland and others are aggressive in their answers because they're tired of seeing proposals stepping on national sovereignty and international security? Perhaps they're tired of environmentalists proposing resolutions such as this one that damage industry while masquerading as a nuclear protections bill? I'm just throwing it out there.

The Democratic Republic of Ritico
Member: Conservative Republics

I think Nuclear power safety helps this industry. Because of the related risks, this industry need more credibility than other industries to be trusted and accepted by governments and populations living around, and as several competitive technologies, credited with acceptable risk worldwide exist, this proposal doesn't damage this industry.

Also, I'm sorry but the related Ambassador co-authored himself NSUN legislation stepping on national sovereignty (Love and esterel voted for it).

Also, I'm sorry but the related Ambassador co-authored himself NSUN legislation stepping on national sovereignty (Love and esterel voted for it).

Hence Ritico made clear "and others." We all vote for different reasons.

The aim of this proposal as stated in the -E- is to reduce the risks, not 0 risk. There is nothing in this proposal about irresponsible forced implementation, as existing nuclear power technologies complying with widely accepted risk level is a cheap way of producing energy.

But there is the license for the NERC to "make requirements", and no provision whatever for the nation affected to have any choice in the matter or for anyone to consider factors beyond purely surety concerns.

It seems to us that as we are dealing with "nuclear" strategic and tactical weapons and not weapons in general, the border between these too is really confusing. And it seems to us also that a tactical nuclear weapon may well be a part of a deterrent force, as it used to be in history.

But we're not talking about history, we're talking about today. And yes, a tactical nuclear weapon may be a part of a deterrent force. But what we've said, over and over again, is that that is not their only legitimate role, as this resolution holds.

On a sidenote we would appreciate if the estimeed Ambassador of Ausserland may tone down his repeated agressivity in his answers in this thread and others, thank you.

We need no lectures from the representative of Love and esterel about our style of debate in this Assembly. We will be as aggressive as we feel we need to be to oppose the passage of bad legislation and to support good legislation. We'll tone down nothing.

By Order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

It seems to us that as we are dealing with "nuclear" strategic and tactical weapons and not weapons in general, the border between these too is really confusing.No, the difference is pretty clean cut and rather obvious, really. Unless the difference between a man-portable, shoulder-launched weapon and a stories-tall ICBM are too similar to tell the difference between.

But there is the license for the NERC to "make requirements", and no provision whatever for the nation affected to have any choice in the matter or for anyone to consider factors beyond purely surety concerns.

It seems to me that common sense prevail, the safety measures described in this proposal are usual, common and far from expensive and in the other hand the protential dangers are important. And if it's really needed, the proposal states in -6.2- that the NERC is charged with offering help to members in order to comply.

But we're not talking about history, we're talking about today. And yes, a tactical nuclear weapon may be a part of a deterrent force. But what we've said, over and over again, is that that is not their only legitimate role, as this resolution holds.

About history, I was thinking about both history and today. This proposal mention "reasonable", it's why it's a more a good conduct principle anyway and you agree yourself that it may be a part of a deterrent force, it seems to me something can have several purposes and as the border between the two is pretty unclear, it's of course open to some minor interpretation, and you know that for having drafted such clause yourself.


No, the difference is pretty clean cut and rather obvious, really. Unless the difference between a man-portable, shoulder-launched weapon and a stories-tall ICBM are too similar to tell the difference between.

In the end this is the same kind of weapon inside, it's why it's seems to me it's pretty difficult, in particular when dealing with deterrence, to make clear cut difference.

From Representative Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad,

Hellao!!! It is me again, Borat Sogadiev. This proposal is a okaay... The part about securing nuclear facilities and having levels assigned to incidents according to their lethality is a very nice!!! However the part about "urging nations to not exceed their deterrent need" is very bad!!!! I think that you will get more support for this proposal if you remove this portion of the bill. I am not going to vote on it just yet, however it will most llikely be voted for by me. Anyway I think for most part that this proposal is a very nice, and I encourage nations to contemplate this further! Again my thanks to the nation that came up with this proposal.

-Rep. Borat Sogadiev

However the part about "urging nations to not exceed their deterrent need" is very bad!!!! I think that you will get more support for this proposal if you remove this portion of the bill.Too late.

I am not going to vote on it just yet, ...Best git crackin'. Voting ends in just a few hours.

In the end this is the same kind of weapon inside, it's why it's seems to me it's pretty difficult, in particular when dealing with deterrence, to make clear cut difference.So drawing the difference between a lawnmower and a Mack Truck is difficult because they both use internal combustion engines?

So drawing the difference between a lawnmower and a Mack Truck is difficult because they both use internal combustion engines?

:confused: A lawnmower uses a two cycle gas/oil mixture, a Mack Truck uses a four cycle diesel engine so yea they are plenty different and not just in terms of size.

In fact they are quite the same. You get a whole bunch of lawnmowers and they are going to spew out the same amount of CO2 as a Mack Truck. You throw around enough small nuclear weapons and they are going to cause the same radioactive damage as a single larger one.

But I really don't see this as a point for or against this stupd resolution.

Indeed, my friend. Commander Nikrat is going to enjoy watching our TIE interceptors pick off those X-wings while they're busy looking for that non-existent exhaust port.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Yawn. Fine...when the Ewoks have stormed the shield generator facility, I'll just instruct the X-wings to target the laser array. They won't even need to destroy it...just knock it out of alignment. Then when Darth Poindexter gives the order to fire that bad boy, it'll backfire and vapourise the whole station :p

Back on topic. I freely confess to not having read the resolution in its entirety, but I think it would help if the size of the reduction of each country's nuclear arsenal was clarified. If we end up still operating under the principles of Mutual(ly) Assured Destruction, then the prospect of seeing mushroom clouds anytime soon becomes much less likely. However, if they're reduced to the point that a nuclear war becomes "winnable" - albeit with horrendous casualties, then suddenly things start looking a lot more unpleasant for the smaller nations (such as Tymbuqtwo).

Is there any mention of development of anti-ICBM systems? Even without reducing nuclear stockpiles, countries with the ability to significantly limit the effectiveness of nuclear missiles will have a big advantage over those without.

The planet based shield generator was only in use while the Station itself was under construction and retrofit. Those were finished ages ago, and the planetary defence module is now being put to use keeping the Ewoks from leaving the trees. The Star itself is a self-sustaining unit with no need of planetary contact for defence. The laser arrays recalibrate themselves as part of the main firing sequence so that they can be freely used independant of the main cannon when it is not in use. The Sheiks are more than fully capable of running a ship much more efficiently than a bunch of tired old priests from a washed up superstition.

Have fun with those Ewoks.

We would like to thanks all members who have voted for this proposal and all those who have debated politely in this thread.

We hoped this proposal to pass, but at least we have the satisfaction to have spread widely these important principles about limitation to a reasonable detterent force and security procedures and good practices for such facilities.

We are also sorry for those who supported this proposal, while having preferred clause -1- not be included. It was just too much for me in RL to divide in 2 resolutions this 2 related important topics. If those members want to use whatever of its content they are welcome.

About the stats of the vote, I seems the vote of the feeders and others big regions had a big influence, as more than the whole gap beteween for and against was made by region with more than 50 votes (among them, only a region with 52 votes voted for). Among members excluding delegates, the tally was equal, but more delegates voted against than for, here are some stats:

http://test256.free.fr/nrvotes.jpg
from:
http://test256.free.fr/nr%20votes.xls

If members who supported this proposal want to use whatever of its content they are welcome.
I think this is an important topic and I'd like to use it in a revised proposal if it's OK with you.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b106/Yelda/nrvotes.jpg
Wow! (the parts I circled)

No pb