NationStates Jolt Archive

Radiological Terrorism
Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Quintessence of Dust

Description: The United Nations,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Encourages all reasonable measures to detect unauthorised radiological material, such as radiation sensors at ports and major transportation hubs.
This proposal will go to vote on Monday. I will endeavour to answer as many comments as possible.

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

OOC: Thanks to all delegates who approved the proposal, those who contributed to its drafting - notably Ausserland and Yelda - and any willing to defend it in debate. For all the stick I've given those who don't defend their proposals at vote, I have really bad timing myself: I start my new job this week, so the extent to which I'll be able to inhabit this debate thread I can't really say.

You will have full, unqualified support from the Federal Republic on this matter. Combatting terror, in whatever form it assumes, is of utmost importance to maintaining global peace and stability, and securing the free world from annihilation at the hands of extremists. We applaud the advent of this, a key diplomatic component in the international war on terror, and will celebrate its passage. And we will tactfully look the other way if any native "militants" are taken out and beaten in the streets in the course of the jubilation.

In that vein, the Destructor has declared Friday to be Quintessential Day in the Federal Republic. Everybody get jiggy with it.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

i agree with this bill but

would it not be more effective to regulate the possession of the radiological materials rather than specifying weapon. many radioactive isotopes release alpha particle radiation which is harmless unless it comes in direct contact with the skin and so releaseing this in the atmosphere/enviroment would be harmless to peoples, especially since these are usually solids.

overall these radiological substances would be far more devastating if leaked into water supplies or on crop fields. i think this bill should be altered to incorporate such.

would it not be more effective to regulate the possession of the radiological materials rather than specifying weapon. many radioactive isotopes release alpha particle radiation which is harmless unless it comes in direct contact with the skin and so releaseing this in the atmosphere/enviroment would be harmless to peoples, especially since these are usually solids.
I'm not at all sure what you mean by this. First, as a couple of points of correction:
- alpha particle radiation is essentially harmless even when it does contact the skin: it needs to be taken into the blood stream to become dangerous
- the state of a radioactive source is not of relevance to, well, anything, so suggesting that their being 'usually solids' is of consequence seems odd

Second, the point of this proposal is that radiological material does have wide legitimate application. Several times, restricting access to such is promoted, but anything more stringent would be prohibitively difficult to affect. Possession of radiological material is regulated by this proposal.

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

firstly please dont correct me so matter of factly because your wrong. alpha radiation is the most ionising of the three common forms of radiation (them being alpha, beta and gamma) and can be extremely dangerous when it comes into contact with any cell, blood or otherwise.

secondly i think this bill should be only about regulating the possession of radioactive materials. never mind the weapons stuff. that is just overkill beacuse if you start specifying you should really go into all the forbidden activities.

We view this as a well-written, commonsense way of dealing with the dangers posed by radiological weapons. You have Altanar's full support.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

just for the general information of those concerned radiological waepons arent really that much of a danger. they are dangerous but not the hugely serious issue making a bill would make them. youd be better talking about something more dangerous such as guns or lightning.

firstly please dont correct me so matter of factly because your wrong. alpha radiation is the most ionising of the three common forms of radiation (them being alpha, beta and gamma) and can be extremely dangerous when it comes into contact with any cell, blood or otherwise.
And again, you are getting confused. The outer layer of skin can block alpha radiation fine. It's only when introduced into the body somehow that it would be dangerous: otherwise, the particle simply cannot get in to do any damage. I have yet to understand what any of this has remotely to do with the proposal at hand.
secondly i think this bill should be only about regulating the possession of radioactive materials. never mind the weapons stuff. that is just overkill beacuse if you start specifying you should really go into all the forbidden activities.
No offence, but it is a little difficult to understand what point you are making. You suggest it is 'overkill', yet in the same sentence suggest the proposal isn't comprehensive enough. Those two assessments are incompatible.

This is a proposal about radiological terrorism: the clue is in the title. It is not intended as a piece of safety regulation for the use of radiological materials in industry; such an item of legislation might well be of value, but it's simply not the point of this one.
just for the general information of those concerned radiological waepons arent really that much of a danger. they are dangerous but not the hugely serious issue making a bill would make them. youd be better talking about something more dangerous such as guns or lightning.
That's a spectacularly self-defeating argument. It's precisely because they are of little military value - but of great potential for terrorist use, because of the degree of disruption they could cause - that a proposal like this can work. I don't doubt guns kill more people: trying to ban them absolutely would tend to produce certain problems, no?

Once again, please stick to the proposal, not your ridiculous whatevers.
-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Paradica has chosen to vote for this proposal.

Roderick Spear
Paradican UN Ambassador

the outer layer of skin blocks the radiation but in doing so it is touched by it. the ionising effects can result in burns and eventually skin cancer.

it makes sense to me. im making the point that this bill shouldnt bother specifying weapons and if it is going to do so it should mention the other ways terrorists can use these materials. aka it goes too far with its level of detail for what is needed but in doing so it should actuall cover every aspect of its topic (radiological terrorism) whcih means its in between what it should be, too detailed or not detailed enough depending on what was wanted.

and terrorists aim to cause fear to achieve their goals, not cause disruption. and getting rid of guns wouldnt cause me any problems.

and getting rid of guns wouldnt cause me any problems.
Then I think I can do without the lectures on military strategy.

Vote against the proposal; I wouldn't want your brand of reasoning associated with it.

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

whats wrong with my reasoning. i thought this was a place to discuss and amend bills. most of what i was saying was telling you about radiation. no need to take it all personally. and i was thinking about voting for it anyway. i just wanted to point out the shortcomings

Let's clear up a couple of things. This bill has nothing to do with the industrial regulation of radiological materials because there are a great many legitimate uses for radiological materials. This bill is not aimed at inducing regulations upon those uses because doing so would not further the actual aims of this proposal. What this bill does mandate is fairly simple:

-don't have radiological weapons
-don't give radiological materials to terrorists
-keep an eye on those you think might be involved in radiological terrorism
-share info about these things with the rest of the UN
-be prepared for radiological attacks
-keep your radiological materials safe
-keep an eye out for unauthorized materials

Now then, where, in that short list, does it become relevant exactly which forms of radiation are the most potent? Where does it become unclear that it does indeed deal with both weapons and material falling into the hands of terrorists? Where, in fact, does it become irrelevant to deal with weaponry? Realizing that the non-weaponized usages of radiological materials is already covered by this bill anyways, would it not be butt-thrustingly moronic to leave the weaponized uses out? How exactly can one possibly compare or equate legislation regarding radiological materials and legislation regarding lightning?

On the matter of guns, I offer a simple challenge. You state that ridding yourself of guns would not be a problem. Good for you. To put it on the same level as this bill, rid the UN of guns. Go on. Give it a try. Have fun.

Unadulterated support FOR this proposal, the representative from Domhain's nonsensical rambling aside.

We are glad to do everything necessary to combat dangerous and harmful terrorist actions, and deny them weapons with which to cause mass damage and slaughter.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro Tempore

Bearing in mind the slight inaccuracies in the honoured representative for Kivisto's list, we would like to assure the proposor of our unadulterated disinterest in this motion.

lightning
Lightning?

Anyway, we offer our full support to the Quodite delegation on the passage of this Resolution.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

and terrorists aim to cause fear to achieve their goals, not cause disruption. and getting rid of guns wouldnt cause me any problems.

Fear of getting your face melted off works pretty well, doesn't it? It sounds like we argued about this before.

Terrorists, if they have their claws on a radiological weapon, are not going to just threaten to use it. They will use it, to make their point and get what they want. Destruction, death, irradiation and disruption are all advantageous after-effects of the terrorism itself- the populace is sufficiently terrorised enough to listen to whatever the terrorists want. If Aunt Selina got fused to her kitchen counter, chances are Nephew Jaren is going to convert to Islam and renounce the Great Satans.

If I may quote a prominent Imperial military theorist-

"If you want to win a battle, do two things. One: Be prepared in all respects. Two: scare the everliving fuck out of your enemies. Then, you will be victorious."

That was from Commodore Arden Maal. I tend to agree.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro Tempore

Enough about the bloody alpha particles:

How do alpha particles change in the environment?

Alpha particles don't get very far in the environment. Once emitted, they travel relatively slowly (at approximately one-twentieth the speed of light) due to their electric charge and large mass. They lose energy rapidly in air, usually expending it within a few centimeters. Because alpha particles are not radioactive, once they have lost their energy, they pick up free electrons and become helium.

Alpha particles also cannot penetrate most matter they encounter. Even a piece of paper, or the dead outer layers of human skin is sufficient to stop alpha particles.Dead skin cells stop alpha particles. Dead skin cells. Not living. Not able to be mutated. Dead. As long as you aren't blasting yourself in the eyes or inhaling them, you'll be fine.

Enough already. Please discuss the Proposal at hand, not random irrelevencies.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Hirota will vote FOR.

Auseerland will be casting its vote FOR this excellent resolution. The threat of radiological terrorism is real and serious, and this legislation will make a significant contribution toward interdicting it.

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

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

We in the great country of Snowflankk desided to vote AGAINST this proposal..
not that we support terrorism.. but we believe not that terrorisme is a problem in our country or in the region..

terrorisme shouldn't be dealt with that way.. terrorisme is due to a lack of fredom of speach.. terrorist are people who want's their political idea out in the open.. and in most countries where the terrorist are born there is no fredom of speach.. in theese countries you get killed if you say something bad about the government.. THIS is the problem.. providing more funds to the police and military won't stop terrorism it will only hold it back..

OOC:
Please excuse the IC post here, but it might give an idea as to what's going through the heads of those involved here.

IC:
[phone rings in the office]
Linard: Hello.
Horgen: Your Excellency, it's Horgen here.
Linard: Who?
Horgen: Your UN representative.
Linard: Oh yes, do continue.
Horgen: They've just proposed something that might interest you.
Linard: Oh yes, what is it?
Horgen: A radiological weapons ban.
Linard: I can't see how that'd refer to us. We don't even have an army...or much of one. I don't know what a radiological weapon is.
Horgen: Think along the lines of a nuclear bomb, only with radioactive material instead.
But say one of these weapons were used against us.
Linard: Oh, you do have a point there. We are, after all, living in dangerous times, aren't we?
Horgen: Yes, Your Excellency. May I vote in favour then?
Linard: Please. And could you make sure everyone knows what we said?
Horge: No worries, Your Excellency.

OOC:
And now to vote...well, I think we all know the answer to that one.

OOC:
Please excuse the IC post hereWell, this is an In Character forum...

Bearing in mind the slight inaccuracies in the honoured representative for Kivisto's list, we would like to assure the proposor of our unadulterated disinterest in this motion.

OOC: Inaccuracies? Crap, I thought I got those out in my first edit through. Help a guy out and let me know where they were. I'm not spotting them. Thanks. /OOC

We in the great country of Snowflankk desided to vote AGAINST this proposal..
not that we support terrorism.. but we believe not that terrorisme is a problem in our country or in the region..

Well that's all fine and dandy for your nation/region, but this is intended to deal with an area somewhat larger than that. There are other areas of the world where these are rather significant problems.

terrorisme shouldn't be dealt with that way..

How should it be dealt with, then, if not to restrict their capacity to terrorize?

terrorisme is due to a lack of fredom of speach..

That is just one possible cause of terrorism. There are a plethora of other reasons for terrorism which should not be dismissed out of hand. In any case, this proposal deals with not giving terrorists some of the tools of terrorism. There are already riders in other resolutions which serve to address and attempt to rectify the underlying causes of terrorism.

terrorist are people who want's their political idea out in the open..

Or they could be paramilitary non-governmental groups who simply wish the destruction of others who disagree with them. Again, you are choosing only a single possibility and ignoring the rest. And again, this is subject matter dealt with by other resolutions already in place. This resolution serves to keep these groups from gaining access to radiological weapons. Whatever their reasoning or goals might be, we shouldn't be granting them the power to eradicate chunks of the populace.

and in most countries where the terrorist are born there is no fredom of speach..

If those nations were the ones in which they usually made their attacks, then there might be something to what you say. As is, terrorists usually attack nations other then the ones in which they were born or currently reside. And, again, we still should not be giving them radiological weapons.

in theese countries you get killed if you say something bad about the government..

That is very unfortunate. I don't mean to sound callous about that, but if these nations are members of the UN, then they are in contravention of a number of articles of UN law. If they are not members, then there is little that we can do to legislate a change in those nations. And, again, we should not be giving these terrorists radiological weapons.

THIS is the problem..

THAT is merely one set of problems within a much larger framework of issues and problems that exist within the world. NONE OF THAT is even intended to be covered by this proposal, as much of it is covered by other UN resolutions, and the rest is outside of the legislating power of the UN.

THIS resolution deals with reducing the access that these groups have to radiological weapons and materials, and it does it fairly well.

providing more funds to the police and military won't stop terrorism it will only hold it back..

Issue the first with this statement: This proposal is intended to lessen the possible impact of radiological terrorism across the globe, not stop terrorism dead in it's tracks.

Issue the second: Terrorism will not be wiped out. We could pretend that it no longer exists by redefining terrorism to mean something else, and brand all those who are currently terrorists something else, but that won't gain us anything. To assume that there is any rational way to put an end to those willing to use irrational methods to achieve their goals is far past naive. It is foolish in a way that is a danger to yourself and those around you.

Issue the third: You have managed to make a few statements about terrorism, which indicates that you read the title of the resolution at vote. Your every statement, however, only serves to demonstrate that you have either completely failed to read, or failed to comprehend, the entirety of the text of the resolution. If you have questions, or don't understand something, then ask us. We (the author and supporters) will be more than willing to help you out, and bring you up to speed with the intents of this resolution and some of the reasoning for things being as they are within it. Don't go off on irrelevant tangents about matters that aren't even under the scope of this proposal. Many will ignore you, and most of the rest will belittle your arguments. What's worse is that there are some who will be swayed by what you say without actually realizing that there is no substance to it within the matter at hand.

Okay let me make sure I understand this clearly...
Only terrorist groups are NOT aloud to hold radiological weapons. However, a powerful war nation like mine uses these weapons to keep potential invaders at bay. We never use them when we conquer, but only if invasion of my nation is threatened. This not a very good resolution as it does not clearly specifiy these terms. A responsible nation like mine needs them to defend ourselves EFFECTIVLY.

-Militaristic Emporer Keelur von Termeenatur

Okay let me make sure I understand this clearly...
Only terrorist groups are NOT aloud to hold radiological weapons. However, a powerful war nation like mine uses these weapons to keep potential invaders at bay. We never use them when we conquer, but only if invasion of my nation is threatened. This not a very good resolution as it does not clearly specifiy these terms. A responsible nation like mine needs them to defend ourselves EFFECTIVLY.

-Militaristic Emporer Keelur von Termeenatur

If your military leaders are so completely clueless that they've made your country dependent on radiological weapons for its defense, you need to do some mass firings. And you do know the difference between radiological weapons and nuclear weapons, don't you?

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

A very sensible UN proposal, you have the United States' full support

Janvier Solana
Janvier Solana
Cookeslandic UN Ambassador

Sanguinex will be casting its vote FOR this proposal, it is well worded and does precisely what it sets out to do.

Sebastian Rath
Sanguinoi Ambassador to the UN

Four votes FOR.

Sensible, reasonable, and well-written.

But I'd still vote for if the only reason was that those speaking against are effectively clueless.

Okay let me make sure I understand this clearly...
Only terrorist groups are NOT aloud to hold radiological weapons. However, a powerful war nation like mine uses these weapons to keep potential invaders at bay. We never use them when we conquer, but only if invasion of my nation is threatened. This not a very good resolution as it does not clearly specifiy these terms. A responsible nation like mine needs them to defend ourselves EFFECTIVLY.
No, you don't. Radiological weapons would prove completely ineffective at defence: think it through. They disperse radiological material. You're deploying them in your own country. Uh...

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

It's common knowledge that there has been a history of problems between humans and us goblins. Humans have been oppressing us for too long, and though our current leadership is at peace with humans, there are still plenty of goblins who haven't forgiven the humans. Some of them would gladly use radiological weapons if they could obtain them.

We support this resolution. Not only for our safety, but also for the humans, many of whom are innocent of the crimes against goblinkind.

right well firstly i apologise for the slight incoherantness of my arguement yesterday but i was "distracted" but back to the matter at hand.

Let's clear up a couple of things. This bill has nothing to do with the industrial regulation of radiological materials because there are a great many legitimate uses for radiological materials. This bill is not aimed at inducing regulations upon those uses because doing so would not further the actual aims of this proposal.

What i originally was proposing, whether this was conveyed properly or not, was if you just regulate who has the radioisotopes then everything else mentioned here becomes irrelevant. terrorists or anyone else cannot use things for weapons if they cant get them in the first place. what i was saying is that this bill should be changed to limit the possession of these materials and in so doing eliminate any risk of radiological terrorism or anything else. i did not say to prohibit the possession of these materials so all the legitimate uses would NOT be affected.


-keep your radiological materials safe
-keep an eye out for unauthorized materials

i do believe these points convey what im talking about. As well as that if these two points are inacted by themselves then the rest are irrelevant. if you keep the stuff safe and keep them out of unauthorized hands then how would a terrorist use them and i believe adding the pieces concerning keeping them away from terrorists and keeping an eye on terrorists with these materials is pointless. allowing them to get the radioisotopes in the first place would be against the bill.

can i point out a contradiction in the same post i took the rest of these quotes from since everybody else are so quick to point out my mistakes or veering off point.

Let's clear up a couple of things. This bill has nothing to do with the industrial regulation of radiological materials because there are a great many legitimate uses for radiological materials.
Realizing that the non-weaponized usages of radiological materials is already covered by this bill anyways, would it not be butt-thrustingly moronic to leave the weaponized uses out?

which do you mean? does it cover the legitimate uses or not?

Although we have our reservations about the scope of this bill, we extend our full support.


Lord Antonius von Quistgaard,
Grand Duke, Alagir

We in the great country of Snowflankk desided to vote AGAINST this proposal..
not that we support terrorism.. but we believe not that terrorisme is a problem in our country or in the region..

Lucky you. Not every nation is so fortunate.

terrorisme shouldn't be dealt with that way.. terrorisme is due to a lack of fredom of speach.. terrorist are people who want's their political idea out in the open.. and in most countries where the terrorist are born there is no fredom of speach.. in theese countries you get killed if you say something bad about the government.. THIS is the problem.. providing more funds to the police and military won't stop terrorism it will only hold it back..

As a country that has been dealing with a terrorist insurgency for some 30-odd years now, i am compelled to say that this is a load of hogwash. I also don't care why a particular group may feel compelled to use such heinous weapons, and that includes any and all such reasons, all the way down to 'their mothers didn't cuddle them enough as children'. The use of radiological weapons is a disgusting act. Period. Preventing access to such weapons is an essential matter.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

which do you mean? does it cover the legitimate uses or not?

I'll join the "didn't speak too clearly" club on that note.;)

What I was meaning with that last statement was that non-weaponized terrorist uses were still covered. It was a reference to your comments about dropping materials into water supplies and the like.

-keep your radiological materials safe
-keep an eye out for unauthorized materials

i do believe these points convey what im talking about. As well as that if these two points are inacted by themselves then the rest are irrelevant. if you keep the stuff safe and keep them out of unauthorized hands then how would a terrorist use them and i believe adding the pieces concerning keeping them away from terrorists and keeping an eye on terrorists with these materials is pointless. allowing them to get the radioisotopes in the first place would be against the bill.


First of all, for heaven's sake learn to use your SHIFT key! If you want to argue the merits of the proposal, that's great, but common courtesy requires that you make your posts readable.

Now to this point of argument. For this to be valid, you would have to assume that the security system was perfect and would absolutely guarantee that radiological material could not be obtained by terrorists. That is completely unrealistic. There is no such thing as perfect security. Therefore, you take additional measures to protect your people from this threat.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

The Soviet Socialist Republic of Citenka is fully support this resolution. Radiological weapons must never be used by anyone, no matter what good goals they have. Sadly, this resolution is not clearly prohibit transfer radiological materials to those non-UN governments that are uses radiological weapons by themselves. But this is important first step to completely stop this madness.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

I am voting FOR this.

The humble nation of Seventh Avenue sees no reason why any one wouldn't support this resolution unless they support terrorist organizations and wish to further terrorist attacks everywhere. Therefore we will put our full support behind this well written and extremely necessary resolution and hope that it, or one like it is passed before a terrorist organization proves the necessity of a proposal such as this one.

Wolfgang, in such a foul mood due to a poor day, was contemplating inhaling alpha particles. Or blasting himself in the eye with them. Instead, he rose from his chair.

"The Great Commonwealth supports this excellent piece of legislative artwork wholeheartedly. That's right; it's so great, the Alpha called it ‘artfully done.’ And if we did holidays all the time, we’d have a day for it, too. My counterpart in the DEFCON is thrilled.”

Oh, to hell with it, he thought, and blasted his own head off with the SD gun again. A tiny speaker could be heard saying, "Wolfgang current score: 11."

OOC: Damn Mondays to hell and back. Wait... why would I want them back? Stupid figure of speech.

OOC: Inaccuracies? Crap, I thought I got those out in my first edit through. Help a guy out and let me know where they were. I'm not spotting them. Thanks. /OOC

OOC: It's as much an IC nit-picker's snipe as a real problem. Of the seven points you listed as mandated by the proposal:

-don't have radiological weapons
-don't give radiological materials to terrorists
-keep an eye on those you think might be involved in radiological terrorism
-share info about these things with the rest of the UN
-be prepared for radiological attacks
-keep your radiological materials safe
-keep an eye out for unauthorized materials
only three are actually mandated (the others being requests and the like). Also the third one's overstated if you've got as much of a hair-trigger about police intrusion into anything as Gobbannium has! Unreasonable? Hell yes. But then who isn't in this place? :-)

/OOC

i agree with this bill but

would it not be more effective to regulate the possession of the radiological materials rather than specifying weapon. many radioactive isotopes release alpha particle radiation which is harmless unless it comes in direct contact with the skin and so releaseing this in the atmosphere/enviroment would be harmless to peoples, especially since these are usually solids.

overall these radiological substances would be far more devastating if leaked into water supplies or on crop fields. i think this bill should be altered to incorporate such. yes, but that would alter the industry of medicines and other stuff that use radiological material if we relegated all of that meterial

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

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

(from the "Radiological Terrorism" proposal up for UN vote)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Greetings UN Members:

After reviewing the "Radiological Terrorism" proposal, The Self-Serving has chosen to vote against the measure. Let me open my mind to you all, lest you think The Self-Serving is a nation comprised of unreasonable hot-heads.

The premise of point 2.) seems to be that there is no legitimate use for radiological weapons. While I think it unlikely that The Self-Serving would feel the need to use a radiological weapon with in her borders, say to irradiate the camp of an invading military force or a criminal stronghold, The Self-Serving wouldn't want to prevent another nation from developing radiological weapons for domestic use.

As for point 3.), what is the definition of a terrorist? When perhaps a third of the American colonists were rebelling against their rightful rulers, the British, were those colonists engaging in terrorist activities? And when France provided aid to the colonists, in the form of troops and warships, were they enabling terrorism?

The Self-Serving respectfully suggests that what constitutes Terrorism is subjective. The Self-Serving wouldn't want to take away the choice of nation to offer whatever assistance individuals, groups, or nations may request.

Our more cynical UN members may conclude that the fact that the Self-Serving mines Uranium has colored our response. Let me assure you, The Self-Serving is always an advocate of the freedom to choose, regardless of the issue.

Thank you for your time!


From the Desk of The Selfish One

As for point 3.), what is the definition of a terrorist? When perhaps a third of the American colonists were rebelling against their rightful rulers, the British, were those colonists engaging in terrorist activities? And when France provided aid to the colonists, in the form of troops and warships, were they enabling terrorism?Here, have a metallic container of elongated soft-bodied invertebrate animals. We call them worms.

Has it not been defined before?

Ah, now heres a resolution that the Palentine can fully support. We heartedly concor with the resolution, and thnak the reperesentative from Quod for submitting this fine resolution. Now to you mental midgets who are once again having a hissy fit over the definition of terrorism, heres a fine Yeldan Horsewhip(TM), to go with the Fine Yeldan Dead Horse(TM), that you will find outside, in the parking lot.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
Palentine UN Office

Fine Yeldan Dead Horse(TM)

That's not our horse!

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b106/Yelda/floggingdeadhorse.jpg

As for point 3.), what is the definition of a terrorist?

Terrorism was precisely defined by this Assembly in the resolution titled "UN Counterterrorism Initiative". While that definition technically applies only to that resolution, it could certainly serve as precedent in interpreting the provisions of this one.

When perhaps a third of the American colonists were rebelling against their rightful rulers, the British, were those colonists engaging in terrorist activities?

No, they were not.

And when France provided aid to the colonists, in the form of troops and warships, were they enabling terrorism?


No.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

I do agree with Self-Serving about the lack of a definition for terrorist groups. The proposition does actually not refer to any known definition neither does it set one for the purpose of this resolution.

Further, I have problems defining precisely the "third parties likely to facilitate such transfers". Technically, every third party is likely to facilitate a transfer of knowledge to terrorist groups - whatever they are. It is difficult not to say impossible to control for a longer period of time what the said "third parties" are doing with the knowledge given to them.

Last not least, most of the nations in Europe who have an opinion about this proposition are against it.

Therefore, Gallantaria will vote against this proposition.

Rinir Gayal,

UN Delegate of the Confederacy of Gallantaria
UN representative for Europe

Further, I have problems defining precisely the "third parties likely to facilitate such transfers". Technically, every third party is likely to facilitate a transfer of knowledge to terrorist groups - whatever they are. It is difficult not to say impossible to control for a longer period of time what the said "third parties" are doing with the knowledge given to them.

We'd advise the representative of Gallantaria to try reading the resolution again -- and perhaps his colleagues in Europe should do the same. The clause at issue is:

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

Where does it say anything about knowledge? The clause specifically concerns the radiological material.

Further, we'll absolutely guarantee you that, if our nation is the third party in question, we will under no circumstances be "likely to facilitate" a transfer of the material to terrorist groups. The statement that "every third party" would be is an insult to those nations who take their international responsibilities seriously. And, of course, nations would find it difficult or impossible to control what others do with the material. That's why you don't give it to them in the first place if you have reason to believe they'd act irresponsibly.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

Terrorism was precisely defined by this Assembly in the resolution titled "UN Counterterrorism Initiative". While that definition technically applies only to that resolution, it could certainly serve as precedent in interpreting the provisions of this one.

(From "UN Counterterrorism Initiative" resolution, the text in bold is my emphasis)
1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence by persons or organizations other than national governments for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by primarily and deliberately targeting members of the civilian population;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'd like to thank the representative from Ausserland for bringing the above definition of terrorism to my attention. I'm willing to accept this definition of terrorism.

However, the definition of terrorism contained within the "UN Counterterrorism Initiative" doesn't preclude national governments from targeting civilians to further their agenda.

So, my objection to point 2.) of the proposed "Radiological Terrorism" resolution before the UN still stands. Further, as national governments are apparently incapable of acts of terrorism, I wouldn't want to infringe upon the choice of one nation government to transfer radiological weapons to another national government.

From the desk of The Selfish One

First i would like to apologise for the absence of capital letters. Consider it done. Btw i hardly think not using the shift key makes the posts unreadable.



Now to this point of argument. For this to be valid, you would have to assume that the security system was perfect and would absolutely guarantee that radiological material could not be obtained by terrorists. That is completely unrealistic. There is no such thing as perfect security. Therefore, you take additional measures to protect your people from this threat.


If it is completely unrealistic to rely on the governments to keep control over these materials in their own countries then i hardly think it is realistic to expect a country to be able to keep control of terrorists with these materials. it is far easier not to let them have them then it would be to get them back of monitor their actions.

yes, but that would alter the industry of medicines and other stuff that use radiological material if we relegated all of that meterial

It would not alter the industry of medicine. Legitimate organisations dont just go out and pick their radioisotopes off the street. There are proper channels in place already where these materials are involved. all that is needed are background checks and addition of security. I'm sure hospitals and other places that use radioisotopes wold have no problem passing background checks and using security when storing these materials, etc.

The premise of point 2.) seems to be that there is no legitimate use for radiological weapons. While I think it unlikely that The Self-Serving would feel the need to use a radiological weapon with in her borders, say to irradiate the camp of an invading military force or a criminal stronghold, The Self-Serving wouldn't want to prevent another nation from developing radiological weapons for domestic use.


I would like to point out that these devices do not have stratigic uses for a nations military, especially within its borders. they irradiate but would not stop an invader. At worst they would sentence the invaders to a life of cancer well after they have won the war. Airbursting a small nuclear devise would be the more viable option.

Set mode = Grammar Nazi.

Yes, it does make it more difficult to read. It has been shown in studies that properly capitalized text is easier to read than all lowercase or all uppercase. Furthermore, just capitalizing the first letter of each sentence isn't enough. Words like "I" are capitalized, too. Try writing your posts in a word processor with spell and grammar check, then copy it into Jolt. Please.

Set mode = normal.

I would like to point out that these devices do not have stratigic uses for a nations military, especially within its borders. they irradiate but would not stop an invader. At worst they would sentence the invaders to a life of cancer well after they have won the war. Airbursting a small nuclear devise would be the more viable option.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(from Wikipedia topic "radiological weapon")

Damage assessment

There is currently (as of 2006) an ongoing debate about the damage that terrorists using such a weapon might inflict. Many experts believe that such a bomb would be unlikely to harm more than a few people and hence it would be no more deadly than a conventional bomb. Hence, this line of argument goes, the objectively dominant effect would be the moral and economic damage due to the massive fear and panic such an incident would spur. On the other hand, some believe that the fatalities and injuries might be in fact much more severe. This point is, e.g., made by physicists Paul Zimmerman et al. (King's College London) who reexamined the Goiânia accident which is arguably comparable. (Ref.: Nature Science Update of 5 May 2004)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hmmm, sounds like radiological weapons may potentially be a viable way for nations to achieve their ends, at least in the minds of some authorities.

I'd like to make it clear that The Self-Serving aren't advocating the use of radiological weapons. We just want to preserve all nations right to choose.

From the Desk of The Selfish One

If it is completely unrealistic to rely on the governments to keep control over these materials in their own countries then i hardly think it is realistic to expect a country to be able to keep control of terrorists with these materials. it is far easier not to let them have them then it would be to get them back of monitor their actions.


Thank you. You've made an excellent argument in favor of the resolution. That's exactly the point: to take steps to keep the material out of the hands of terrorists.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

I'd like to make it clear that The Self-Serving aren't advocating the use of radiological weapons. We just want to preserve all nations right to choose.A lot of those arguing in support of this proposal are members of the nat sov group, so if anyone knows about nations right to choose, it's them.

Nonetheless, there is a very strong argument that can be made that international peace and security transcends national interests and should be legislated upon acordingly.

In retrospect to this section of the resolution

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

My nation has no intention of surrendering our stocks of said weapons.To place this provision is to violate our sovereign right to self defence.

Free Pacific Nations votes Nay.

My nation has no intention of surrendering our stocks of said weapons.To place this provision is to violate our sovereign right to self defence.Why on earth would your military stock such weapons? You do know the difference between nuclear weapons and radiological weapons, right?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

I'm sorry. Maybe these words are too big. I read the bill till my brain started to hurt. Can someone summarize this for me before I vote for it? I would be trilled by such hospitality. I thank you with the deepest of my thoughts

I'm sorry. Maybe these words are too big. I read the bill till my brain started to hurt. Can someone summarize this for me before I vote for it? I would be trilled by such hospitality. I thank you with the deepest of my thoughts"Making dirty bombs is bad. Don't let terrorists do it."


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

"Making dirty bombs is bad. Don't let terrorists do it."

(OOC: Bravo, no really. You should join Dubya's inner circle. The poor sod could deal with that kind of summarisation.)

The Supreme Council of Bynzekistan sees no problem with the proposal at hand, and votes in favour.

Sincerely,

Dina Munero
Bynzeki United Nations Liaison

I'm sorry. Maybe these words are too big. I read the bill till my brain started to hurt. Can someone summarize this for me before I vote for it? I would be trilled by such hospitality. I thank you with the deepest of my thoughts

"OMG We're all going to die! Quick Mavis, lock the doors, burn the insurance policies, spend millions on a vanishingly unlikely eventuality, and shove electrodes up some poor sod's arse just because his grandmother was from Yemen!"

Or, in more restrained terms, it's yet more alarmist rubbish driven by people and states who find that a constant state of fear and panic makes their populations easier to control and fleece. Yenistan shall be voting against this measure - if some of you want to spend your GDP on things that serve no purpose other than giving James Bond fans a hard-on, let them, but don't expect us to join in your ego-tripping.

"OMG We're all going to die! Quick Mavis, lock the doors, burn the insurance policies, spend millions on a vanishingly unlikely eventuality, and shove electrodes up some poor sod's arse just because his grandmother was from Yemen!"

Or, in more restrained terms, it's yet more alarmist rubbish driven by people and states who find that a constant state of fear and panic makes their populations easier to control and fleece. Yenistan shall be voting against this measure - if some of you want to spend your GDP on things that serve no purpose other than giving James Bond fans a hard-on, let them, but don't expect us to join in your ego-tripping.
Enjoyable as that was, a few things to note:

1. The reference to torture is odd, given we're the ones who sponsored the UN's latest anti-torture resolution.

2. We don't spend our GDP on such things. The combined Defence and Law & Order budget of Quintessence of Dust is...0.

3. Our civil rights are at the same level as Yenistan's and our political freedoms are higher, so I'm not sure why you're so concerned about controlling and fleecing.

4. It would be hard to paint this as ego-tripping given we admit we personally would like to think we stand at little risk of suffering radiological terrorism.

Not, naturally, that any of that has any bearing on the proposal, but hey, reading is hard.

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

"OMG We're all going to die! Quick Mavis, lock the doors, burn the insurance policies, spend millions on a vanishingly unlikely eventuality, and shove electrodes up some poor sod's arse just because his grandmother was from Yemen!"

Or, in more restrained terms, it's yet more alarmist rubbish driven by people and states who find that a constant state of fear and panic makes their populations easier to control and fleece. Yenistan shall be voting against this measure - if some of you want to spend your GDP on things that serve no purpose other than giving James Bond fans a hard-on, let them, but don't expect us to join in your ego-tripping.

Are you incapable of putting forth an argument without offensive sneering, or is it just that it boosts your fragile ego to demean others?

Maybe it's a measure supported by people who -- unlike you -- are intelligent enough to recognize a realistic and credible threat and sensible enough to do something about it.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

Enjoyable as that was, a few things to note:

1. The reference to torture is odd, given we're the ones who sponsored the UN's latest anti-torture resolution.

2. We don't spend our GDP on such things. The combined Defence and Law & Order budget of Quintessence of Dust is...0.

3. Our civil rights are at the same level as Yenistan's and our political freedoms are higher, so I'm not sure why you're so concerned about controlling and fleecing.

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

1. People who overstate the dangers of terrorism have repeatedly turned out to be the ones willing to bend the rules on due process, Geneva Convention etc. Maybe you're the exception. It was a general comment.

2. So who's going to pay for the provisions contained in the motion? It will after all REQUIRE - not reccomend, not encourage - Yenistan to monitor people who will, 99.9% of the time, turn out to be either innocent or inept.

3. My point was that this is one more hugely small risk being (pardon the pun) blown up out of all proportion. The only people to benefit from it will be governments carrying out the Mencken method of "menacing the populace withy a series of imaginary hobgoblins, leading them to be clamorous to be led to safety". And people will be fleeced by an ever-more encouraged military-industrial complex selling ever-more unecessary "protection".

That's not our horse!

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b106/Yelda/floggingdeadhorse.jpg

My mistake, old man.

"OMG We're all going to die! Quick Mavis, lock the doors, burn the insurance policies, spend millions on a vanishingly unlikely eventuality, and shove electrodes up some poor sod's arse just because his grandmother was from Yemen!"

Or, in more restrained terms, it's yet more alarmist rubbish driven by people and states who find that a constant state of fear and panic makes their populations easier to control and fleece. Yenistan shall be voting against this measure - if some of you want to spend your GDP on things that serve no purpose other than giving James Bond fans a hard-on, let them, but don't expect us to join in your ego-tripping.

Don't join us, if you like. But if someone uses a radiological weapon on your stunningly idiotic government and incredibly inane population, don't come crying to us, either. In your case, we'd consider it evolution.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

:sniper: Military Might is a a real big thing and these weapons cause little destruction :mp5: so why do we need them in the first place these weapons are useless let's put our money were it counts on weapons that stronger and more effective

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(from Wikipedia topic "radiological weapon")

Damage assessment

There is currently (as of 2006) an ongoing debate about the damage that terrorists using such a weapon might inflict. Many experts believe that such a bomb would be unlikely to harm more than a few people and hence it would be no more deadly than a conventional bomb. Hence, this line of argument goes, the objectively dominant effect would be the moral and economic damage due to the massive fear and panic such an incident would spur. On the other hand, some believe that the fatalities and injuries might be in fact much more severe. This point is, e.g., made by physicists Paul Zimmerman et al. (King's College London) who reexamined the Goiânia accident which is arguably comparable. (Ref.: Nature Science Update of 5 May 2004)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hmmm, sounds like radiological weapons may potentially be a viable way for nations to achieve their ends, at least in the minds of some authorities.



Don't make that point in relation to what I said. I said that these weapons have no use for a country within their own borders and this does not disprove this. Using one of these within your own borders would cause much civilian damage. A country with enough disregard for their own people to use one of these weapons might as well napalm the place is the enemy approaching in the hope they loose interest and go home.

Thank you. You've made an excellent argument in favor of the resolution. That's exactly the point: to take steps to keep the material out of the hands of terrorists.



The point i've been making is that we would be better regulating the possession of these materials and that is what this advocates. I included terrorists because that is the only group anyone else seems to want to address.

I included terrorists because that is the only group anyone else seems to want to address.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, there might be a reason for that? Like, maybe, perhaps, I don't know, the TITLE. Radiological TERRORISM. Your points about controlling possession are only on topic so far as we are speaking of terrorists possessing them, and nations keeping known or suspected terrorists from gaining possession of them.

It will after all REQUIRE - not reccomend, not encourage - Yenistan to monitor people who will, 99.9% of the time, turn out to be either innocent or inept.Sounds like it's your intelligence services which are inept if they are highlighting that many people/groups for monitoring.

Thats why im making a point of this bill. Why is it necessary to specify terrorists. No-one can even define terrorist. My way would worth better and more efficiently. Anyway im finished debating this now because obviously its already up to vote. Myself and my UN delegate have voted against it.

1. People who overstate the dangers of terrorism have repeatedly turned out to be the ones willing to bend the rules on due process, Geneva Convention etc. Maybe you're the exception. It was a general comment.
First, where does this assumption that we're overstating the dangers of terrorism come in? We've said that if radiological weaponry were deployed, it could be very dangerous, but that it appropriate measures are taken to reduce the potential of terrorists acquiring radiological material, that risk would be substantially mitigated; I also explicitly stated I didn't consider my own country to be under any immediate threat (though we obviously intend on monitoring that threat). I don't see where we've introduced any element of alarmist hysteria, though if you can pick out some statements from the proposal or floor remarks, that'd obviously help your case.

And second, while it may have been a 'general comment', it was also a 'wrong comment'. Not that I should technically need to defend against a guilt by association trip, but there are plenty of nations with exemplary human rights records supporting this (and some less savoury ones opposing it). For the record, we support due process - we'd hoped to contribute to drafting the replacement of the UN resolution on the subject, but that seems to have died a death - and fair treatment of prisoners of war, though neither subject is of immediate relevance here.
2. So who's going to pay for the provisions contained in the motion? It will after all REQUIRE - not reccomend, not encourage - Yenistan to monitor people who will, 99.9% of the time, turn out to be either innocent or inept.
Shit, remind me never to visit Yenistan on holiday. If your definition of 'probable cause' means 99.9% of the time innocent people are brought under suspicion, your constitutional processes must really suck. I'd suggest implementing some drastic legal reforms post haste.

For those of us living in countries with more reasonable constitutional protections of privacy, and where probable cause has some degree of meaning, the cost won't be so much of a worry: after all, weren't you the one suggesting there was limited danger of terrorism? In which case, there won't be many groups to observe, and hence doing so will require few resources.
3. My point was that this is one more hugely small risk being (pardon the pun) blown up out of all proportion. The only people to benefit from it will be governments carrying out the Mencken method of "menacing the populace withy a series of imaginary hobgoblins, leading them to be clamorous to be led to safety". And people will be fleeced by an ever-more encouraged military-industrial complex selling ever-more unecessary "protection".
Ok, settle down, this is meant to a debate, not a rhetorical circle jerk. You can quote someone smarter than you: well done.

Light applause.

I don't accept that radiological terrorism is an imaginary hobgoblin (and I'd note you've provided no evidence to suggest that it is such). There have been documented efforts of terrorist organizations trying to acquire radiological materials. And it seems like common sense to keep that stuff out of their hands anyway.

As for the military-industrial complahahaha no, sorry, couldn't quite get through it there, I think you've misgauged the requirements being placed on you. If the resolution asked you to blow them up or buy helicopters and missiles, I'd understand the wild hyperbole a little more, but it's simply asking you to monitor suspect groups. All you need for that is a warrant and a pair of spy glasses you can send off for from the back of a comic book; not really enough to keep the evil industrialists churning along.

Using the kind of weapons you're alluding to would be a monstrously stupid idea, given we're dealing with radiological weaponry: it would amount to detonating the weapon for the terrorists. That would probably be why none of the provisions of this proposal encourage or endorse such actions.

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

2. So who's going to pay for the provisions contained in the motion? It will after all REQUIRE - not reccomend, not encourage - Yenistan to monitor people who will, 99.9% of the time, turn out to be either innocent or inept.


Because your nation's intelligence and law enforcement services are apparently completely incompetent is no reason for the rest of us to vote against this resolution. Some of us have intelligence folks who are capable of doing decent threat assessment and selective targeting. You apparently don't. That looks like your problem, not ours.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

Thats why im making a point of this bill. Why is it necessary to specify terrorists.

Because the purpose of this bill is to keep these things out of the hands of terrorists.

No-one can even define terrorist.

It shouldn't be necessary for a rather common term to have to be defined for every pedantic half-wit that comes along.

My way would worth better and more efficiently.

Then feel free to draft a bill that regulates the possession and handling of radiological materials by industries. There is nothing stopping you from doing so. In fact, it has already been suggested for you to do so once or twice before. That way, we'd have all of our bases covered. Wouldn't that be wonderful.

Anyway im finished debating this now because obviously its already up to vote.

Friend, you never actually began debating this bill. You were off on a wild strawmen chase from the get go. You seemed to be enjoying it, too. Tell you what, we ever get the chance, I show you the fine art of Snipe hunting.

Myself and my UN delegate have voted against it.

Good for you. Care to actually share why, or are you still off on a tangent about the fact that this bill deals with what it aims at doing instead of some random crap that you've dreamed up? Cause if that passes as a good reason to oppose anything, be afraid of what reasons will come out of the woodwork should you ever decide to propose what you've been rambling on about. I'm having a vision of arguments like "but this radiological materials bill doesn't guarantee that my forests will remain unviolated by rabid hordes of terrorist were-potatoes!"

Yeah quite enjoying it actually. And since your addressing me i thought I'd show a little culture and reply.

Because the purpose of this bill is to keep these things out of the hands of terrorists.

Actually I read the sub-heading of the bill and it says:
Radiological Terrorism. A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.
Surely this should play a part in what the bill actually does.

Also I think it was a debate considering several times people were responding to what I'm saying. A debate being:
1. talk or argue about something: to talk about something at length and in detail, especially as part of a formal exchange of opinion
2. think about something: to ponder something carefully.

I voted against it because I've been going on about it for so long. I dont like the idea of the UN making bills so specific that they single out terrorists and say they are not allowed to go near radiological, but still sub-critical, materials and because i think we could do better. Not that I could do better because I prefer to vet what other people are wrting since I'm relatively new. Pointing out flaws is so much more useful than flooding the place with proposals.

Good for you. Care to actually share why, or are you still off on a tangent about the fact that this bill deals with what it aims at doing instead of some random crap that you've dreamed up? Cause if that passes as a good reason to oppose anything, be afraid of what reasons will come out of the woodwork should you ever decide to propose what you've been rambling on about. I'm having a vision of arguments like "but this radiological materials bill doesn't guarantee that my forests will remain unviolated by rabid hordes of terrorist were-potatoes!"

And please stay on point.

I voted against it because I've been going on about it for so long.

You're voting against because you're tired of the subject. That makes great sense.

I dont like the idea of the UN making bills so specific that they single out terrorists and say they are not allowed to go near radiological, but still sub-critical, materials

You don't believe that terrortists warrant special attention from the international community. Special.

and because i think we could do better.

And everything you suggested would work fine in a separate proposal, but they don't fit within the confines of what this one is attempting to accomplish. I think the big thing to mention here is that what you have suggested could still occur with this proposal in place, as they deal with sufficiently different areas that there would be no concerns of duplication.

Not that I could do better because I prefer to vet what other people are wrting since I'm relatively new. Pointing out flaws is so much more useful than flooding the place with proposals.

I will give you credit for that. We do appreciate not being flooded.

And please stay on point.

I was no more off point than your repeated statements that this proposal should do things that are not within the scope of itself.

You're voting against because you're tired of the subject. That makes great sense.
No because I've been argueing against it for so long.

You don't believe that terrortists warrant special attention from the international community. Special.
I dont think terrorists warrent particular special attention. There are far more dangerous threats to mankind that terrorism. Diseases and other more common forms of crime kill far more and cost an economy more. As long as there are people there will be some form of terrorism and so it just needs to be managed. There is no point in focusing single mindedly on something you cant get ride of. Everything else will just suffer as a result.

"So then... you hold that disease and common crime will one day be eradicated? I mean, just because we can't get rid of it doesn't mean we can't fight it, and we can't just poof a magical resolution that fights all causes into place, so this is how we combat all of the things that dog down our society. It seems to me that what you want is to fight other causes. Then bloody do so! Write your own resolution! THIS, however, is the cause currently at vote, so this is what we're doing."

No because I've been argueing against it for so long.


But you haven't levelled a single argument directly against this resolution. You have repeatedly stated that you believe it should do something outside of the scope of what it is setting out to do.

I dont think terrorists warrent particular special attention. There are far more dangerous threats to mankind that terrorism.

Agreed. There are other threats that need attention. Thank god that we do actually pay them some attention in the many passed UN resolutions that continue to benefit the world.

Diseases

Epidemic Prevention Protocol, Eradicate Smallpox, Global Aids Initiative, Healthcare Certification, Increased Access to Medicine, Needle Sharing Prevention, No Embargoes On Medicine, NS HIV AIDS Act, Patient Rights Act, The IRCO, The Sex Education Act, The Sex Industry Workers Act, and World Blood Bank. Did I miss any?

and other more common forms of crime

Let's start by saying that many crimes are inherently intranational in nature, and, as such, the UN doesn't legislate on it, leaving it, instead, in the hands of individual nations to work out for themselves. We are, after all, an international organization. That said....Ban Trafficking In Persons, Child Labour, Child Pornography Prohibition, End Barbaric Punishments, End Slavery, Extraordinary Rendition, Outlaw Necrophilia, Outlaw Pedophilia, The Eon Convention on Genocide, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few.

kill far more

By that logic, since, statistically speaking, more people are killed by drunk drivers than as a result of first degree murder, we should not bother, as individual nations, criminalizing Premeditated Murder since it is not as effective as criminalizing driving drunk.

and cost an economy more.

This is not about money. What price could you possibly put on the safety,l security, and well-being of billions of sapient lives?

As long as there are people there will be some form of terrorism and so it just needs to be managed.

Which is exactly what this is aimed at doing.

There is no point in focusing single mindedly on something you cant get rid of. Everything else will just suffer as a result.

So you would intend to rid the world of disease and other crimes how, exactly? Realize, before you answer, that this has turned into the crux of your whole argument. You are declaring that we should do something to completely eradicate a problem instead of attempting to control and manage one that would be impossible to completely eradicate. So, how? How would you suggest we completely eradicate either of the two things that you have put forward as alternatives that we should be dealing with instead of this? Failure to satisfactorily answer will completely undermine everything you have said or argued so far in this debate. Failure to answer at all will likely have you ignored in the future as you will only be proving that you are incapable of actually providing substance to your meaningless wind.

Actually I read the sub-heading of the bill and it says:Radiological Terrorism. A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.Surely this should play a part in what the bill actually does.First off, all proposals filed under the International Security category get that description. Secondly, don't you think that boosting police and military budgets will make carrying out clause 4 easier?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Why on earth would your military stock such weapons? You do know the difference between nuclear weapons and radiological weapons, right?

Thank you, yes I do know.

My nation also stocks the latest in high tech sniper weapons, is working on rail gun technology and is currently looking at the developement of a space borne radar and lasing system.

My nations motto is "qui custodiet ipsos custodes" (who will watch the guardians?)..my military prefers the motto "peace through overwhelming firepower".

What weapons my nation has or develops is a matter for our government and our people.

We maintain a sovereign right to self defence.

My nation also stocks the latest in high tech sniper weapons, is working on rail gun technology and is currently looking at the development of a space borne radar and lasing system.

We’d like to ask why the honourable representative’s nation requires radiological weapons considering such a plethora of vastly superior and more surgical technology being readily available to the government. Surely your evident prowess in developing military technology renders radiological weapons obsolete and a waste of funding?

What weapons my nation has or develops is a matter for our government and our people.

We maintain a sovereign right to self defence.

If you use radiological weapons for defence then you won’t have a people or a habitable nation for very long, they are far from surgical so please do tell us how you employ them for self-defence, give us a scenario so Ithania can understand them in a new light.

How do you counteract such things as say the direction of the wind carrying some varieties of material in unpredictable directions?

The resultant impact from the unpredictability of these weapons and the ability to construct radically more efficient armaments due to our level of technology have always been a reason to deplore and avoid radiological weapons. Our entire defence industry awaits your answer.

Oh, and yes, we vote in favour.

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

OOC: Sorry if this is rather inane, I'm afraid I've been up for far too long.

We’d like to ask why the honourable representative’s nation requires radiological weapons considering such a plethora of vastly superior and more surgical technology being readily available to the government. Surely your evident prowess in developing military technology renders radiological weapons obsolete and a waste of funding?

It is one weapon in an arsenal. As needs change and defence strategies are reviewed, it is possible these will be dismantled, rendered safe and disposed of.

If you use radiological weapons for defence then you won’t have a people or a habitable nation for very long, they are far from surgical so please do tell us how you employ them for self-defence, give us a scenario so Ithania can understand them in a new light.

Deterrence.

The resultant impact from the unpredictability of these weapons and the ability to construct radically more efficient armaments due to our level of technology have always been a reason to deplore and avoid radiological weapons. Our entire defence industry awaits your answer.

Oh, and yes, we vote in favour.

Your defence industry is your issue.

I do not claim nor pretend to advise you on matters of national security.Those matters remain solely your area of responsibility, and as much, Free Pacific Nations will not presume to intervene in an area that impinges on your sovereignty.

Should this UN Resolution pass, we will of course, albeit reluctantly, abide by it.

Necessity being what it is ,as members of this august body we must, of force, obey such strictures as laid down in this Resolution.

That does NOT mean that we are pleased to do so.

We await the final vote tally.

Deterrence.How? How are radiological weapons a deterrence? "Don't you come near, or we'll blow up this stack of TNT wrapped in uranium! Nevermind the fact that simply storing it is poisoning everyone at that particular warehouse!"

Rather like holding off a knife-wielding mugger by pointing a rocket launcher at your head.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Deterrence.
We would recommend you quickly re-organise your military in order to allow you to greater protect your sovereignty.

If you were to use these weapons against an attacking nation then effects would be inconsistent to say the least; even something as simple as the weather could control whether your weapon is successful or not.

Further, you are aware that these weapons are not instantly destructive aren’t you? While nuclear weapons have immediate impact when deployed, a radiological weapon's effects would only begin to be seen hours or even days after use, we would hardly call that an effective deterrent considering it allows your enemy ample time to relocate and re-organise.

We remain convinced that radiological weapons are quite impractical as a defensive or offensive measure.

Your defence industry is your issue.

I do not claim nor pretend to advise you on matters of national security.Those matters remain solely your area of responsibility, and as much, Free Pacific Nations will not presume to intervene in an area that impinges on your sovereignty.

We agree, we were simply trying to make you substantiate your point through requesting information. We never actually desired advice nor did we believe we could learn anything; our intention was to dissect any answer you gave us or take a lack of answer as illustrative of no support. Congratulations on achieving a fine balance between both.

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

My nation also stocks the latest in high tech sniper weapons, is working on rail gun technology and is currently looking at the developement of a space borne radar and lasing system.You have all these surgically precise devices, and yet you try and support the right to employ something so indescriminate and ineffective?

Oh, and your armed forces are rubbish. Just 6% of your budget on defence? (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Free+Pacific+Nations) Hardly overwelming.

Seabear70 sees this one as a no brainer.

No legitimate country would choose to allow their country or their world to become contaminated with radioactive dust which would undoutably cause huge numbers of deaths and mutations.

In addition to the huge costs in human lives and property resulting in billions of assenines in cleanup, assuming that the disaster could in fact be cleaned up sufficiently, the ecological costs of such an attack would be devestating.

Seabear70 is unreservadly behind this resolution, and to that end is willing to place it's military and economy behind the implimentation and enforcement of this goal.

As a first step, we will today be executing several rablerousers and journalists who spoke out against this resolution. This is not to stop freedom of speech, which we hold dear, but to improve the quality of our genepool, which is also held dear.

We Salute You :upyours:

As a first step, we will today be executing several rablerousers and journalists who spoke out against this resolution. This is not to stop freedom of speech, which we hold dear, but to improve the quality of our genepool, which is also held dear.

We Salute You :upyours:

I may not be a huge fan of that salute, but the genepool comment makes me chuckle.

Thank you, yes I do know.

My nation also stocks the latest in high tech sniper weapons, is working on rail gun technology and is currently looking at the developement of a space borne radar and lasing system.

My nations motto is "qui custodiet ipsos custodes" (who will watch the guardians?)..my military prefers the motto "peace through overwhelming firepower".

What weapons my nation has or develops is a matter for our government and our people.

We maintain a sovereign right to self defence.

If your military leaders think that, with all the other weapons apparently available for your national defense, it's necessary or even appropriate to maintain a stockpile of radiological weapons, we have a suggestion. Take some of that money that you spend on high-tech R&D and open a school that teaches basic military science.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

The Commonwealth of Schwarzchild supports this resolution and commends the author/authors of it.

Sir Thomas B. Lynniston
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Yeah i was finished about three posts ago. The only reason I'm still going on in here is because you are qouting me and arguing further. I wanted to change the bill before it went to vote. Technically everything in this thread after it went to vote is completely pointless. You keep teling me that what I'm saying doesnt even fall into this bill but my original motive was to alter it, even if ony slightly. Lets call it a day. But in my defence at the moment its not exactly being passed by the hugest margin. It's only 1:1.5 in favour. The last one was 1:2.1. Maybe someone is at least listening.

I am not convinced that this resolution will do anything to impede the actions of terrorists who, not surprisingly, are undaunted in the face of international law. Were I to be convinced that it would sufficiently discourage or hinder terrorism or serve some other purpose beyond simply preventing otherwise peaceful nations from doing what is necessary to properly protect their interests, I would feel compelled to support this resolution. As a nation committed to protecting the freedom to act in its own self-interest, Bukkakus can not support this resolution.

Yeah i was finished about three posts ago. The only reason I'm still going on in here is because you are qouting me and arguing further. I wanted to change the bill before it went to vote. Technically everything in this thread after it went to vote is completely pointless. You keep teling me that what I'm saying doesnt even fall into this bill but my original motive was to alter it, even if ony slightly. Lets call it a day. But in my defence at the moment its not exactly being passed by the hugest margin. It's only 1:1.5 in favour. The last one was 1:2.1. Maybe someone is at least listening.

Someone is always listening - that's the entire point of debate and discussion. Domhain, some of your views and arguments are extreme, but they're opinions nevertheless. The posters in this thread are merely outlining their own opinions. Motives are all very well, but, especially in the case of the NS United Nations, once a proposal is submitted it can't really be altered, unless it's done in the form of an addendum thread here on the forums, which is impossible to link to from the proposal itself. I admire your determination though. Keep trying - one more vote to your side is better than none.

I may not be a huge fan of that salute, but the genepool comment makes me chuckle.


In Seabear70, that salute is a sign of our most serious intentions, and I felt a little local color was in order.

As a note, only 7% of or GNP is given over to our military, but 21% is given over to law enforcement. FOr those concerned with our ability to do our part in enforcement of this resolution, Our Police are better armed than your soldiers.

As a note, only 7% of or GNP is given over to our military, but 21% is given over to law enforcement. FOr those concerned with our ability to do our part in enforcement of this resolution, Our Police are better armed than your soldiers.It's not the size of the budget, but the quality of the equipment.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

To paraphrase the respected Sheik bin Cluich, now we know where we are not vacationing this year!

Congratulations on the success and hopefully passage of a worthwhile resolution.

Ding-ding! We have a winner!
I'm cautious about international security resolutions, and I consider radiological to be a silly word, so I'm against for now.
Please see our lovely assistant Marjorie to collect your dunce's hat, available now in shades of green, purple, and unbe-fucking-lievably dense.

-- George Madison
All round nasty chap
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

OOC:
Woah, crap, this passed already? I thought it had a day longer. Oh well.

Thanks to everyone who contributed.

My taxes went up 3 percent with your Radiological Terrorism act. I knew it. That's why I voted against it. It was an unfunded mandate. If there'd been some suggestion for how to pay for it, it may have been another story. Not right man. Not right at all!

In Seabear70, that salute is a sign of our most serious intentions, and I felt a little local color was in order.

As a note, only 7% of or GNP is given over to our military, but 21% is given over to law enforcement. FOr those concerned with our ability to do our part in enforcement of this resolution, Our Police are better armed than your soldiers.

For point of reference, if we're just looking at percentages, my L&O is sitting at 44%, with my Defence following at 39%, so no, your cops aren't better armed than my troops. Irrelevant anyways, but just to keep it in perspective for you.

My taxes went up 3 percent with your Radiological Terrorism act. I knew it. That's why I voted against it. It was an unfunded mandate. If there'd been some suggestion for how to pay for it, it may have been another story. Not right man. Not right at all!

You know, normally I'd say that any increase in police or military that accompanies an IS reso would naturally be covered with an increas in taxes, but my taxes didn't budge in the slightest. Must be something else you did.

i comply

That was unexpected!

My taxes went up 3 percent with your Radiological Terrorism act. I knew it. That's why I voted against it. It was an unfunded mandate. If there'd been some suggestion for how to pay for it, it may have been another story. Not right man. Not right at all!

Assuming that your taxes did go up 3%, so what?

If you had a single attack that you had to clean up, then it would eat up a greater percentage of your GNP than that. A significantly greater percentage.

In addition, if you concentrate on keeping your taxes low, then the bump would provide additional revenues through employment of local response and investigation teams.

OOC:
Apparently I need new glasses, because I also hadn't noticed this was resolution #200. Woo.

Congratulations on the passage of your resolution QoD, and for it being number 200. I'm glad it was a well written resolution that acheived that milestone and not just a repeal :).

Our congratulations to the honorable representative of Quintessence of Dust on the passage of this fine resolution.

NSUNR #200? Do you get a prize? Like those "You are the 1,000,000the visitor to this site" banners? :p

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations